New South Wales

Legislative Council

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

Fifty-Seventh Parliament First Session

Tuesday, 16 March 2021

Authorised by the Parliament of New South Wales

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Motions ...... 5171 Modern Slavery Act 2018 Non-Commencement ...... 5171 Attendance of the Leader of the Government in His Place ...... 5171 Business of the House ...... 5171 Notices of Motions ...... 5171 Bills ...... 5172 Strata Schemes Management Amendment (Sustainability Infrastructure) Bill 2020 ...... 5172 Warnervale Airport (Restrictions) Repeal Bill 2020 ...... 5172 Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Drink and Drug Driving Offence) Bill 2021 ...... 5172 Assent ...... 5172 Governor ...... 5172 Administration of the Government ...... 5172 Announcements ...... 5172 Legislative Council Photographs ...... 5172 Visitors ...... 5172 Abdallah and Sakr Families ...... 5172 Announcements ...... 5172 Centenary of the Election of Edith Dircksey Cowan ...... 5172 Centenary of Anzac ...... 5172 Motions ...... 5173 Humane Society International Bushfire Report ...... 5173 Documents ...... 5173 Tabled Papers not Ordered to be Printed ...... 5173 Tabling of Papers ...... 5173 Committees ...... 5173 Legislation Review Committee ...... 5173 Reports ...... 5173 Selection of Bills Committee ...... 5173 Reports ...... 5173 Privileges Committee ...... 5174 Report: Citizen's Right of Reply (RSPCA NSW)...... 5174 Procedure Committee ...... 5174 Correspondence ...... 5174 Standing Committee on Law and Justice ...... 5174 Government Response ...... 5174 Documents ...... 5174 TAFE NSW Scone Campus ...... 5174 Return to Order ...... 5174 Claim of Privilege ...... 5174 Sydney International Equestrian Centre ...... 5174 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Return to Order ...... 5174 ReINVEST Trial ...... 5175 Return to Order ...... 5175 Claim of Privilege ...... 5175 Western Sydney Airport Rail Links...... 5175 Return to Order ...... 5175 Claim of Privilege ...... 5175 Water Projects and CAP Modelling...... 5175 Return to Order ...... 5175 Claim of Privilege ...... 5175 Parramatta Light Rail ...... 5175 Correspondence ...... 5175 Daryl Maguire, Former Member for Wagga Wagga ...... 5175 Correspondence ...... 5175 Dam Infrastructure ...... 5175 Correspondence ...... 5175 COVID-19 and Public Sector Employees ...... 5176 Bushfire Local Economic Recovery Fund ...... 5176 Bushfire Recovery Assistance ...... 5176 Departmental Staff Performance ...... 5176 Metropolitan Sydney Correctional Precinct ...... 5176 Narrandera to Tocumwal Rail Line Reopening Feasibility Study ...... 5176 Gregory Hills Schools Project ...... 5176 Bushfire Support Grants ...... 5176 Hotel Quarantine Security Contracts ...... 5176 Resilience NSW ...... 5176 River Class Ferries ...... 5176 Toll Roads ...... 5176 Variation of Order ...... 5176 Muswellbrook Shire Biorefinery Project ...... 5177 Correspondence ...... 5177 Production of Documents: Order Amended ...... 5177 Revenue NSW ...... 5177 Dispute of Claim of Privilege ...... 5177 Business of the House ...... 5177 Postponement of Business ...... 5177 Members ...... 5177 Ministry ...... 5177 Committees ...... 5177 Standing Committee on Law and Justice ...... 5177 Membership ...... 5177 Standing Committee on State Development ...... 5178 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Chair and Membership ...... 5178 Chair ...... 5178 Portfolio Committee No. 6 - Transport and Customer Service ...... 5178 Reference ...... 5178 Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Planning and Environment ...... 5178 Reference ...... 5178 Bills ...... 5179 Community Land Development Bill 2020 ...... 5179 Community Land Management Bill 2020 ...... 5179 Second Reading Speech ...... 5179 Second Reading Debate ...... 5183 Third Reading ...... 5185 Marine Pollution Amendment (Review) Bill 2020 ...... 5185 Second Reading Speech ...... 5185 Second Reading Debate ...... 5187 Questions Without Notice ...... 5188 Murwillumbah School Closures ...... 5188 NSW Government Graduate Program ...... 5188 School and Childcare Centre Cybersecurity ...... 5189 Tallawarra Power Station ...... 5189 Consent Education ...... 5190 Public School Funding ...... 5191 Hospital Staff Parking Fees ...... 5192 NSW Women of the Year Awards ...... 5192 Booti Booti National Park ...... 5193 Mark Scott Remuneration Package...... 5193 COVID-19 and Business Confidence ...... 5194 Fireplace Ban ...... 5195 Department of Education Consultants ...... 5195 NAIDOC Week Local Grants ...... 5196 Dog Breeding ...... 5196 Yanco Agricultural High School ...... 5197 Regional Education ...... 5198 Supplementary Questions for Written Answers ...... 5199 Department of Education Consultants ...... 5199 Questions Without Notice: Take Note ...... 5199 Take Note of Answers to Questions ...... 5199 Murwillumbah School Closures ...... 5199 Department of Education Consultants ...... 5199 Tallawarra Power Station ...... 5200 NSW Government Graduate Program ...... 5200 Take Note of Answers to Questions ...... 5200 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Deferred Answers ...... 5201 COVID-19 and Preschools ...... 5201 Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap ...... 5202 Intensive Support Teachers ...... 5202 Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap ...... 5202 Indigenous Artefacts ...... 5202 Renewable Energy Zones ...... 5203 Rock Fishing Safety ...... 5203 Family and Domestic Violence ...... 5203 Mollymook School Site ...... 5203 Schofields Public School ...... 5204 Kangaroo Plan of Management ...... 5204 Written Answers to Supplementary Questions ...... 5204 Illawarra Shoalhaven Economy ...... 5204 Schofields Public School ...... 5204 Bills ...... 5206 COVID-19 Legislation Amendment (Stronger Communities and Health) Bill 2021 ...... 5206 First Reading ...... 5206 Committees ...... 5206 Portfolio Committee No. 2 - Health ...... 5206 Government Response: Health Impacts of Exposure to Poor Levels of Air Quality Resulting from Bushfires and Drought ...... 5206 Standing Committee on Law and Justice ...... 5207 Government Response: 2018 Review of the Workers Compensation Scheme ...... 5207 Standing Committee on Law and Justice ...... 5207 Government Response: 2018 Review of the Compulsory Third Party Insurance Scheme ...... 5207 Portfolio Committee No. 5 - Legal Affairs ...... 5207 Report: Road Transport Amendment (Mobile Phone Detection) Bill 2019 ...... 5207 Business of the House ...... 5207 Postponement of Business ...... 5207 Committees ...... 5207 Portfolio Committee No. 4 - Industry ...... 5207 Report: Implementation of the Recommendations of the Chief Scientist's Independent Review of Coal Seam Gas Activities in NSW ...... 5207 Portfolio Committee No. 2 - Health ...... 5207 Report: Operation and Management of the Northern Beaches Hospital ...... 5207 Standing Committee on Law and Justice ...... 5209 Report: 2019 Review of the Dust Diseases Scheme—Silicosis in the Manufactured Stone Industry ...... 5209 Business of the House ...... 5211 Postponement of Business ...... 5211 Committees ...... 5211 Portfolio Committee No. 1 - Premier and Finance ...... 5211 TABLE OF CONTENTS—continuing

Report: Work Health and Safety Amendment (Review) Bill 2019 ...... 5211 Standing Committee on State Development ...... 5211 Report: Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 ...... 5211 Bills ...... 5215 Marine Pollution Amendment (Review) Bill 2020 ...... 5215 Second Reading Debate ...... 5215 In Committee ...... 5216 Adoption of Report ...... 5217 Third Reading ...... 5218 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2021 ...... 5218 Second Reading Speech ...... 5218 Second Reading Debate ...... 5222 Adjournment Debate ...... 5230 Adjournment ...... 5230 Hunter Hydrogen Hub ...... 5230 Industrial Manslaughter ...... 5231 Government Grant Announcements ...... 5232 Cultural Marxism ...... 5232 Hungry Panda Workers ...... 5233 Asset Privatisation ...... 5233 National Parks ...... 5234

Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5171

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday, 16 March 2021

The PRESIDENT (The Hon. John George Ajaka) took the chair at 14:30. The PRESIDENT read the prayers and acknowledged the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its Elders and thanked them for their custodianship of this land.

Motions MODERN SLAVERY ACT 2018 NON-COMMENCEMENT Attendance of the Leader of the Government in His Place Debate resumed from 18 February 2021. The PRESIDENT: Honourable members, according to the order of the House on 18 February 2021 the Leader of the Government is to attend in his place to provide an explanation for not commencing the Modern Slavery Act 2018 and to indicate to the House when the Act will commence. The Hon. (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (14:31): The resolution of the House on 18 February 2021 required I provide today an explanation concerning the commencement of the Modern Slavery Act 2018. I note that the House was provided with a detailed update in relation to the work being undertaken in relation to the Modern Slavery Act during the debate on the motion on 18 February, but I am happy to update the House again today. Firstly, as I noted on the last occasion, the matter was discussed in this place, whilst this House may pass comment on the actions of the Government it does not have the power to direct or compel Ministers of the Crown to make recommendations to Her Excellency the Governor in the exercise of her vice-regal functions. The New South Wales Modern Slavery Act as passed by the Parliament, including this House, provides for its commencement on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation. A proclamation to commence the Act is made by Her Excellency on the advice of Ministers—that is, the Legislature gives to the Executive the power to determine the date of commencement of the Act. As I indicated in the previous debate, this House does not have the power to suspend or expel the Leader of the Government on the basis that an Act is uncommenced. As I also indicated in that debate, the Act is not currently in a state to be proclaimed. The New South Wales Government has commenced discussion with the Commonwealth to attempt a harmonisation between the New South Wales regime and the Commonwealth's Modern Slavery Act. The Commonwealth has indicated that it supports there being a clear and consistent regulatory framework for Australian businesses, and that New South Wales and the Commonwealth need to work to minimise the regulatory burden of entities covered by both Acts. As I previously indicated, the Government supports amending the Act in line with the following principles: firstly, harmonising the New South Wales Act with the Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act with respect to supply chain reporting; and, secondly, retaining components of the New South Wales Act that complement the Commonwealth Act and that are not inconsistent with it. All of this was made very clear in the Government response to the parliamentary committee report. It would not be appropriate to commence the Act as a whole until these significant outstanding policy and regulatory issues have been resolved. The important work required to commence the Act is ongoing. The Government will recommend to the Governor that the Act be commenced when that work is complete. Business of the House NOTICES OF MOTIONS The Hon. : By leave: Pursuant to Standing Order 71, I give notice of a motion relating to the Government's failure to commence the Modern Slavery Act 2018. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5172

Bills STRATA SCHEMES MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT (SUSTAINABILITY INFRASTRUCTURE) BILL 2020 WARNERVALE AIRPORT (RESTRICTIONS) REPEAL BILL 2020 ROAD TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DRINK AND DRUG DRIVING OFFENCE) BILL 2021 Assent The PRESIDENT: I report receipt of messages from the Governor notifying Her Excellency's assent to the bills. Governor ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT The PRESIDENT: I report receipt of messages from the Administrator, the Governor and the Lieutenant-Governor regarding the administration of the Government. Announcements LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL PHOTOGRAPHS The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that a Legislative Council staff member is present in the upper galleries this morning for the purpose of taking photographs. Visitors ABDALLAH AND SAKR FAMILIES The PRESIDENT (14:38): I welcome to the President's gallery this afternoon Danny and Leila Abdallah, Bob Sakr, Bridget Sakr and Craig Mackenzie who joined me and other members in the Preston Stanley Room today to mark the passage of the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Drink and Drug Driving Offence) Bill, otherwise known as the Four Angels Law. The law introduces new harsher penalties for combined drink- and drug-driving offences and is named in honour of Antony, Angelina and Sienna Abdallah and Veronique Sakr who were tragically killed last year by a driver who was three times the legal alcohol limit and under the influence of drugs. Both families have demonstrated immense grace, strength and compassion in establishing i4Give Day, which will take place annually on 1 February in remembrance of the four angels, to help those who have lost someone in a similar way and encourage everyone to find someone they can forgive or ask for forgiveness. We join Danny and Leila, Bob and Bridget and Craig, along with children Liana, Alex, Michael and Michael in remembering the four angels. We acknowledge the extraordinary generosity that they have shown in the most difficult of circumstances. They are an inspiration to us all. It has been a privilege to have them join us here today. They are most welcome. Announcements CENTENARY OF THE ELECTION OF EDITH DIRCKSEY COWAN The PRESIDENT (14:40): The Presiding Officer of the Parliament of Western Australia has requested that we mark the occasion of the election of the first woman member of an Australian Parliament, Edith Dircksey Cowan, on 12 March 1921. Edith Cowan was elected to the Parliament of Western Australia and this year marks the centenary of her election. Although she only served one term, her legacy is significant. Should members wish to obtain an Edith Cowan centenary research pack, please contact the Parliamentary Education Office at the Parliament of Western Australia. CENTENARY OF ANZAC The PRESIDENT (14:41): I am pleased to inform honourable members that a photograph board has been recently hung in the Fountain Court to commemorate the centenary of Anzac. The board includes photographs of members and officers of the Legislative Council as at 25 April 2015. From memory, there are approximately 11 photographs of former members, including Dr John Kaye. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5173

Motions HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL BUSHFIRE REPORT The Hon. (14:41): I move: (1) That this House notes that: (a) on 30 November 2020, the Humane Society International Australia issued a report entitled Safeguarding Australia's Wildlife: Lessons from the 2019-20 'Black Summer' Bushfires [HSI Bushfire Report]; (b) the HSI Bushfire Report highlights that the emergency wildlife response to the 2019-20 bushfires was largely conducted by volunteers, with very little coordination, resourcing and equipment from the Government; and (c) the HSI Bushfire Report makes 12 key recommendations to better prepare New South Wales to protect wildlife in the next bushfire emergency; these focus on planning and capacity building, coordination, and mental health support for the wildlife rescue sector. (2) That this House acknowledges: (a) the important work undertaken by volunteer wildlife rescue groups during the 2019-20 bushfires; and (b) calls on the Government to seriously consider and respond to the recommendation made in the HSI Bushfire Report. Motion agreed to. Documents TABLED PAPERS NOT ORDERED TO BE PRINTED The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: According to Standing Order 59, I table a list of all papers tabled in the previous month and not ordered to be printed. TABLING OF PAPERS The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I table correspondence from the Hon. David Elliott, MP, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, dated 9 March 2021, proposing lodgement dates for progress reporting on the recommendations contained in the final report of the NSW Bushfire Inquiry. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. Committees LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE Reports The Hon. : I table a report of the Legislation Review Committee entitled Legislation Review Digest 27/57, dated 16 March 2021. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Reports The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: I table report No. 44 of the Selection of Bills Committee, dated 16 March 2021. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: According to paragraph 4 (1) of the resolution establishing the Selection of Bills Committee, I move: (1) That: (a) the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Amendment (Plastics Reduction) Bill 2021 be referred to Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Planning and Environment for inquiry and report; (b) the bill be referred to the committee at the conclusion of the mover's second reading speech; (c) the resumption of the second reading debate on the bill not proceed until the tabling of the committee report; and (d) the committee report by 12 October 2021. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5174

(2) That the following bills not be referred to a standing committee for inquiry and report, this day. (a) Cannabis Legalisation Bill 2021; (b) Government Sector Finance Amendment (Government Grants) Bill 2021; (c) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Aquatic Animal Recognition) Bill 2021; (d) Public Health Amendment (Vaccination Compensation) Bill 2021; (e) Racehorse Legislation Amendment (Welfare and Registration) Bill 2021; (f) COVID-19 Legislation Amendment (Stronger Communities and Health) Bill 2021; and (g) Independent Commission Against Corruption (Ministerial Code of Conduct) Bill 2021. Motion agreed to. PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE Report: Citizen's Right of Reply (RSPCA NSW) The Hon. : I table report No. 82 of the Privileges Committee entitled Citizen's Right of Reply (RSPCA NSW), dated March 2021. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. PROCEDURE COMMITTEE Correspondence The PRESIDENT: I table correspondence from the Leader of the Government, dated 15 March 2021, relating to report No. 12 of the Procedure Committee entitled Consultation on highly contentious bills and committee access to external experts, dated September 2020. STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE Government Response The CLERK: According to standing order, I announce receipt of the Government's response to report No. 74 of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, entitled Work Health and Safety Amendment (Information Exchange) Bill 2020, tabled in the House on 11 September 2020, received out of session and authorised to be printed on 10 March 2021. Documents TAFE NSW SCONE CAMPUS Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 17 February 2021, I table documents from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet relating to an order for papers regarding the sale of TAFE NSW Scone campus, received on Wednesday 24 February 2021, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on 24 February 2021 that are claimed to be privileged and should not be tabled or made public. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. SYDNEY INTERNATIONAL EQUESTRIAN CENTRE Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 17 February 2021, I table documents from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet relating to an order for papers regarding the Sydney International Equestrian Centre upgrade, received on Wednesday 10 March 2021, together with an indexed list of documents. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5175

REINVEST TRIAL Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 17 February 2021, I table documents from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet relating to an order for papers regarding the ReINVEST trial, received on Wednesday 10 March 2021, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on 10 March 2021 that are claimed to be privileged and should not be tabled or made public. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. WESTERN SYDNEY AIRPORT RAIL LINKS Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 17 February 2021, I table documents from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet relating to an order for papers regarding Western Sydney Airport rail links, received on Thursday 11 March 2021, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on 11 March 2021 that are claimed to be privileged and should not be tabled or made public. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. WATER PROJECTS AND CAP MODELLING Return to Order The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Thursday 18 February 2021, I table documents from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet relating to an order for papers regarding water projects and cap modelling, received on Thursday 11 March 2021, together with an indexed list of documents. Claim of Privilege The CLERK: I table a return identifying documents received on 11 March 2021 that are claimed to be privileged and should not be tabled or made public. I advise that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only. PARRAMATTA LIGHT RAIL Correspondence The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of Wednesday 17 February 2021, I table correspondence relating to a further order for papers regarding stage two of the Parramatta Light Rail project, received on Wednesday 24 February 2021 from the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, stating that no documents held and covered by the terms of the resolution and lawfully required to be provided are held. DARYL MAGUIRE, FORMER MEMBER FOR WAGGA WAGGA Correspondence The CLERK: Following inquiries from the Hon. , I table correspondence relating to a further order for papers regarding the interests and representations of Mr Daryl Maguire, received on 25 February 2021 from the General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, noting that the certification letters from relevant agencies advised that, to the best of their knowledge, either all documents held and covered by the terms of the resolution and lawfully required to be provided had been provided, or that no documents were held. The correspondence also advised that the Department of Premier and Cabinet is not aware of any information that suggests that the certifications were not accurate. DAM INFRASTRUCTURE Correspondence The CLERK: As reported in the House on 16 February 2021, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, was appointed as an Independent Legal Arbiter to evaluate and report as to the validity of the claim of privilege on certain documents lodged with the Clerk on 2 September 2020 relating to dam infrastructure projects. I now table Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5176

correspondence received on 26 February 2021 from the General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet attaching an index of redacted versions of documents from WaterNSW, which have been provided to the Independent Legal Arbiter who is evaluating the disputed claim of privilege. COVID-19 AND PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES BUSHFIRE LOCAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY FUND BUSHFIRE RECOVERY ASSISTANCE DEPARTMENTAL STAFF PERFORMANCE METROPOLITAN SYDNEY CORRECTIONAL PRECINCT NARRANDERA TO TOCUMWAL RAIL LINE REOPENING FEASIBILITY STUDY GREGORY HILLS SCHOOLS PROJECT BUSHFIRE SUPPORT GRANTS HOTEL QUARANTINE SECURITY CONTRACTS RESILIENCE NSW RIVER CLASS FERRIES TOLL ROADS Variation of Order The PRESIDENT: According to the sessional order agreed to on 10 November 2020 concerning requests to vary the scope of an order for papers, I advise the House that on 2 March 2021 the Clerk received correspondence from the General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet seeking agreement to vary the scope of two orders for papers and to vary the due dates for 13 orders for papers as follows: (1) Sydney CBD based Government Sector Workers requesting that the due date be 19 March 2021. (2) Bushfire Local Economic Recovery Fund requesting that the due date be 17 March 2021. (3) Bushfire recovery grants for small businesses and primary producers requesting that the due date be 22 March 2021. (4) Performance of current department secretaries requesting that the due date be 19 March 2021. (5) Greater Parramatta and the Olympic Peninsula area requesting that the due date be 19 March 2021. (6) Narrandera to Tocumwal Rail Line Reopening Feasibility Study requesting that the due date be 24 March 2021. (7) Gregory Hills Primary School project requesting that the due date be 24 March 2021. (8) Isolation hotels requesting that the due date be 17 March 2021. (9) Establishment of Resilience NSW requesting that the due date be 22 March 2021. (10) Procurement of new ferries requesting that the due date be 22 March 2021. (11) Harbour tolling plans requesting that the due date be 22 March 2021 and (12) 2019-2020 bushfire season grants requesting that: (a) the due date be 7 April 2021; and (b) the resolution be amended as follows: That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 49 days the following documents, excluding any documents previously returned under an order of the House, created since 1 September 2019 in the possession, custody or control of the Premier, Deputy Premier and Minister for Regional New South Wales, Industry and Trade, Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, Regional NSW or Resilience NSW relating to the following 2019-20 bushfire season grants; Bushfire Local Economic Recovery Fund (Round 1), Sector Development Grant, Supply Chain Support Grant, Wine Grape Smoke Taint Grant, Apple Recovery Grants and Special Disaster Grant: (a) all guidelines and criteria, including those communicated to applicants; (b) templates used to send correspondence to applicants; (c) a summary assessment sheet of each grant program with an overview of each application; (d) a summary assessment sheet with an overview of rejected applications or projects; (e) all documents relating to the approval of the Macleay Valley Skydiving Adventure Park; (f) all documents relating to the approval of grant funding for Snives Hives; and Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5177

(g) any legal or other advice regarding the scope or validity of this order of the House created as a result of this order of the House. I table the correspondence. The question is that the varied terms of the orders for papers be agreed to. Motion agreed to. MUSWELLBROOK SHIRE BIOREFINERY PROJECT Correspondence The CLERK: According to the resolution of the House of 17 February 2021 I table correspondence relating to an order for papers regarding the biorefinery project in Muswellbrook shire received on 3 March 2021 from the General Counsel of the Department of Premier and Cabinet advising that an amendment is required to the terms of the order before those papers can be produced. Production of Documents: Order Amended The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (14:42): I move: That the resolution of the House of 17 February 2021 relating to an order for papers regarding the biorefinery project in Muswellbrook shire be amended by omitting "within 21 days of the date of passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Office of Local Government" and inserting instead "within seven days of the passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, the Minister for Energy and Environment, the Minister for Local Government, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, or the Office of Local Government". Motion agreed to. REVENUE NSW Dispute of Claim of Privilege The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 24 February 2020 the Clerk received correspondence from Mr Mookhey disputing the validity of the claim of privilege on certain documents lodged with the Clerk on Friday 29 January 2021 relating to Revenue NSW investigations. Pursuant to standing orders, a retired Supreme Court Judge, the Hon. Keith Mason, AC, QC, was appointed as an Independent Legal Arbiter to evaluate and report as to the validity of the claim of privilege. The Clerk has released the disputed documents to Mr Mason for evaluation and report. Business of the House POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS Mr : I move: That business of the House notice of motion No. 1 be postponed until the next sitting day. Motion agreed to. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That Government business orders of the day Nos 1 to 3 be postponed until the next sitting day. Motion agreed to. Members MINISTRY The Hon. DON HARWIN: I inform the House that on 3 March 2021 His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor accepted the resignation of Mr Anthony as Minister for Sport, Multiculturalism, Seniors and Veterans, and as a member of the Executive Council. I further inform the House that on the same day His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor appointed the Hon. Dr Geoffrey Lee, MP, as Minister for Sport, Multiculturalism, Seniors and Veterans. Committees STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 15 March 2021 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Government advising of the following change in membership of the committee: Mr Martin in place of Ms Cusack Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5178

STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT Chair and Membership The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 15 March 2021 the Clerk received advice from the Leader of the Government advising of the following change in membership of the committee: Ms Cusack in place of Mr Martin Chair The PRESIDENT: I further inform the House that the Leader of the Government has nominated the following member as chair of the committee: Ms Cusack nominated as chair in place of Mr Farraway PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 6 - TRANSPORT AND CUSTOMER SERVICE Reference Ms : According to paragraph (6) of the resolution establishing the portfolio committees, I inform the House that on Wednesday 10 March 2021 Portfolio Committee No. 6 - Transport and Customer Service resolved to adopt the following terms of reference: Acquisition of Land in relation to major transport projects (1) That Portfolio Committee No. 6 - Transport and Customer Service inquire into and report on the acquisition of land by Transport for New South Wales and related agencies in relation to major transport projects, with particular reference to: (a) the response of agencies to the Russell and Pratt Reviews into the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991; (b) the conduct of agencies in acquiring: (i) land for the WestConnex Project; (ii) land for metropolitan rail projects; (iii) land for any project related to the Western Sydney Airport; (iv) land for the Parramatta Light Rail Projects (Stages One and Two); (v) land zoned as commercial land acquired between 2015 and 2020; (vi) land for the North Wilton estate acquired by Landcom; and (vii) any other specific land acquisitions that may give rise to community concerns about current government process. (c) how government agencies identify land for acquisition and the extent to which the price of the land and the identity of landowners are taken into account when determining the route and sites for such projects; (d) how government agencies conduct direct negotiations with landholders in relation to purchasing land/properties prior to, or in parallel with, the compulsory acquisition process, and the extent to which such process is fair, unbiased and equitable; (e) the interaction of the planning, infrastructure and transport planning systems of government to support best practice outcomes for the New South Wales community; (f) whether government agencies are adequately protecting the public against "land banking" and other speculative practices undertaken by persons or interests seeking to profit from future transport projects and rezoning decisions; (g) whether and what legislative or other measures should be taken by the government to capture the uplift in land/property value created as a result of such transport projects; (h) the conduct of agencies and government in relation to the determination of the route of the M9 (Outer Sydney Orbital); and (i) any other related matters. (2) That the Committee report by 1 March 2022. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 7 - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT Reference Ms : According to paragraph (6) of the resolution of the House establishing the portfolio committees, I inform the House that on Monday 15 March 2021 Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Planning and Environment resolved to adopt the following terms of reference: Health and wellbeing of kangaroos and other macropods in New South Wales Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5179

(1) That Portfolio Committee No 7 - Planning and Environment inquire into and report on the health and wellbeing of kangaroos, and other macropods, in New South Wales, and in particular: (a) historical and long-term health and wellbeing indicators of kangaroos, and other macropods, at the local, bioregional and State levels, including the risk of localised extinction in New South Wales; (b) the accuracy with which kangaroo, and other macropod, numbers are calculated when determining population size, and the means by which the health and wellbeing of populations is assessed; (c) threats to kangaroo, and other macropod, habitat, including the impact of: (i) climate change, drought and diversion and depletion of surface water sources; (ii) bushfires; (iii) land clearing for agriculture, mining and urban development; and (iv) the growing prevalence of exclusion fencing which restricts and disrupts the movement of kangaroos. (d) current government policies and programs for kangaroo management, including: (i) the method used for setting quotas for kangaroo culling; (ii) the management of licences to cull kangaroos; and (iii) temporary drought relief policies and programs; (e) current government policies and programs in regards to "in pouch" and "at foot joeys" given the high infant mortality rate of joeys and the unrecorded deaths of orphaned young where females are killed; (f) regulatory and compliance mechanisms to ensure that commercial and non-commercial killing of kangaroos and other macropods is undertaken according to the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and other relevant regulations and codes; (g) the impact of commercial and non-commercial killing of kangaroos and other macropods, including the difficulty of establishing numbers killed by landholders since the removal of the requirement for drop tags; and (h) current and alternative measures to provide an incentive for and accelerate public and private conservation of kangaroos and other macropods. (2) That the Committee report by the first sitting day in September 2021. Bills COMMUNITY LAND DEVELOPMENT BILL 2020 COMMUNITY LAND MANAGEMENT BILL 2020 Second Reading Speech The Hon. (15:43): On behalf of the Hon. Damien Tudehope: I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Community Land Management Bill 2020 and the Community Land Development Bill 2020. These bills repeal and completely rewrite the Community Land Management Act 1989 and the Community Land Development Act 1989 to modernise and update the community schemes laws in New South Wales. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The development bill has the same objects as the current Acts—primarily to facilitate the subdivision and development of land with shared property, the first phase in the life of a community scheme. The management bill becomes more important when the development phase ends, as it governs the management of community schemes, precinct schemes and neighbourhood schemes, providing for meetings and decision-making of associations and committees, the role of managing agents, insurance, financial management, dispute resolution and other needs of a scheme throughout its life. While I am responsible for the Community Land Management Act, the Minister for Customer Service has responsibility for the Community Land Development Act. These reforms align the community schemes legislation with the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 and the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 for much-needed consistency, while accounting for important differences between strata and community title. The Community Land Management Act and the Community Land Development Act were modelled on the first strata scheme laws, as many parallels existed between the two types of land title. However, over the years community schemes laws have not kept pace with changes to the strata scheme laws, so they are now quite outdated. It was this Government that delivered once-in-a-generation reforms to the laws governing strata schemes, which have been in place for over 50 years, with the passage of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 and its twin, the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015. Those new laws commenced in November 2016 after a five‑ year journey—the largest policy project ever undertaken by NSW Fair Trading. At the same time, the community schemes laws were also being reviewed and reforms were developed to modernise them in line with the major changes to strata laws. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5180

The Government originally intended to overhaul the community schemes laws shortly after commencement of the strata reforms in late 2016. But the large amount of work involved in the implementation of the strata laws delayed the completion of parallel changes to community schemes laws. This interval has allowed for some further enhancements and updates to the reform proposals in the Government's community schemes law reform position paper, published in 2014. Of course there have also been multiple piecemeal changes to the strata laws since 2016. These bills replicate those further changes to strata laws wherever they are relevant to community schemes. In 1989 New South Wales enacted a world first with the introduction of community schemes legislation, offering an alternative to conventional strata scheme subdivision, by allowing shared property to be included within Torrens title land subdivisions. These laws enable communities to be developed and sold in stages. Communities often feature a particular aesthetic or theme such as a vineyard estate—popular in California and also to be found in our own Hunter Valley, a holiday cabin, a permaculture hamlet, a retirement village or simply a building standard that is to be followed and perpetuated. Finally, one of the first and often cited community schemes is Breakfast Point, on the waterfront in Sydney's inner west, which was modelled on the country club feel of the Hamptons in Florida. I acknowledge the input and ongoing support of the Breakfast Point Community Association for these reforms. Another notable feature of community schemes is that they more often involve more mixed use than in strata, with greater diversity enabled by the tiered management structure. Every community scheme is different. Schemes range from rural subdivisions with irrigation channels as association property to large closed communities with private roads, high security and extensive recreational facilities such as marinas and golf courses. There has been significant growth in community title since its introduction in New South Wales in 1989. There are now 993 community schemes, 69 precinct schemes and 1,818 neighbourhood schemes in New South Wales, with neighbourhood and community schemes in particular expected to grow further in popularity. Strata schemes can also sit within community or precinct schemes as a subsidiary and there are now 258 such strata schemes, with over 4,000 lots in total. I turn now to the provisions of the Community Land Management Bill. As I noted at the outset, the primary purpose of these bills is to align community scheme laws with the major reforms to strata in 2015. The reforms will bring significant benefits to community schemes, including improving transparency and accountability in the governance of the scheme; clearly defining the roles of office bearers on association committees; clarifying an association's obligations to repair and maintain association property; simplifying dispute resolution within schemes, including reducing the burden on the tribunal; reducing red tape by simplifying procedures and providing greater flexibility for associations to democratically manage their own communities; encouraging participation of owners by adopting modern communication methods; and redefining the trigger for the expiry of the "initial period" to smooth the transition from the scheme's development phase to the management phase. I will give some examples of how the management and development bills will give effect to those overall policy goals. Parts 2 and 3 of the management bill provide for the management of schemes and for association committees. A straightforward update is changing the name of the "executive committee" to "association committee". This term better reflects their function in managing a community, precinct or neighbourhood scheme but not having any special "executive" status or authority over other owners in the scheme. I note here another example of the modernisation of language in this bill. The term "building manager" has been changed to "facilities manager", while the functions of the role remain the same as in the current Act. This term better reflects the nature of community lands where large parts of the scheme are not buildings, but rather other diverse land uses such as parks, recreation areas, tennis courts, restaurants, clubhouses and other facilities. Clause 41 provides that the committee members are to carry out their functions for the benefit of the association and to act with due care and diligence. Clause 16 in schedule 2 provides that committee members will have to disclose any conflicts of interest in any matter to be considered by the committee, further emphasising the standard of conduct expected. Failure to disclose conflicts of interest will be an offence under the Act and may result in a penalty. Clauses 46, 47 and 48 in part 3 of the management bill provide clear definitions for the roles of chairperson, treasurer and secretary. The definition of these roles can be further refined in a scheme's management statement if desired and according to the needs of the particular community. The reform process that led to the major strata reforms of 2015 found a strong desire for strata managing agents to be held more accountable to the schemes on whose behalf they act. This resulted in new rules governing their terms of appointment, potential conflicts of interest and the industry practice of suppliers bestowing gifts and benefits on managing agents. I note that strata managing agents are licensed under the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002 and their functions include managing both strata and community schemes. The rules of conduct under that Act require all agents to act in the best interests of their client and this Government's reforms to the regulation of strata managing agents align with that theme of accountability and consumer protection. Part 4 of the management bill proposes to substantially reform the laws governing managing agents to bring the greater accountability that now operates in strata schemes into community schemes. Clause 64 requires managing agents to disclose at the association's annual general meeting any third party commissions they receive, such as commissions from insurance companies. This includes any commissions that have been paid to the agent during the last 12 months, as well as estimates of commissions expected to be paid to the agent in the following 12 months. Appropriate sanctions will apply for misleading disclosures, or failure to disclose, or accepting a commission that is not of a kind permitted by the agent's terms of appointment or approved by the association. Clause 61 (2) prevents non-monetary gifts and benefits to managing agents from third parties unless the gifts are of a token nature, with the maximum value to be capped by regulation. Clause 54 limits the term of a management contract and will assist owners to dismiss poor performing managing agents. The term of appointment of a managing agent at the first annual general meeting held after the end of the initial period will expire after 12 months of the appointment. Any following term of appointment will be limited to three years unless the appointment is ended sooner, with automatic rollovers no longer allowed in agents' contracts. Clause 75 requires managing agents and facilities managers to disclose any links to the developer and any other potential conflicts of interest such as any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the scheme. This Government embarked on the major strata and community title reform journey almost a decade ago. Among the most important policy objectives of the reforms was supporting earlier identification and rectification of building defects, as well as strengthening the governance of repairs and maintenance. I am pleased to say that part 6 of the management bill now brings those landmark reforms to the management of association property within community, precinct and neighbourhood schemes. Clause 109 of the management bill strengthens the existing statutory duty of associations to maintain and keep association property in a state of good and serviceable repair. Again reflecting the 2015 reforms to strata law, this bill provides that if an association breaches its statutory duty to maintain and repair association property and an association member as a result of that breach suffers any reasonably foreseeable loss, then Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5181

clause 109 (5) enables that member to recover damages from the association to cover their loss. To minimise conflicts of interest in the resolution of defects, clause 14 in schedule 1 excludes developers from voting on matters relating to building defects. Clause 115 requires the builder or developer to prepare an initial maintenance schedule for the maintenance of the association property at the time of registration of the plan and provide it to the association. For example, the schedule could include information about how often the swimming pool filtration system needs to be serviced and when protective treatments should be renewed. Clause 123 allows an association to seek a tribunal order for rectification if work carried out by an owner or occupier of a lot in a scheme has carried out work that has damaged association property or another lot within the scheme. The tribunal may order that the owner or occupier who caused the damage take steps to repair the damage or alternatively pay the association or other lot owner the cost of repairing the damage, as well as other associated costs such as legal fees. Costs payable by an owner or occupier can be added to the owners' levy account and noncompliance with the tribunal order can incur a fine of up to $5,500. The management bill also brings improvements that will assist community schemes to enforce compliance in historically difficult areas such as unauthorised parking on association property and breaches of a scheme's by-laws. Clause 233 of the bill enables regulations to be made allowing community schemes to enter into arrangements with their local council to issue penalty notices on association property to owners of offending vehicles. Better enforcement of by-laws is reflected in clause 138 of the management bill. That clause provides that if a by-law has been repeatedly breached and the tribunal has imposed a penalty in the last 12-month period, an association can apply directly to the tribunal for a further penalty without having to issue a new notice to comply or undertake mediation. The management bill also promotes better compliance by increasing the penalties for by-law breaches, with the current maximum penalty of only five penalty units, or $550, being doubled to 10 penalty units, or a maximum fine of $1,100. Penalties incurred by an owner can be added to the owner’s levy account. Penalties are generally paid to the secretary under the Act— defined as the Commissioner for Fair Trading—but the tribunal can alternatively order that amounts be paid to the applicant, which in most cases would be the community association. Part 11 of the management bill deals with the resolution of disputes and the powers of the tribunal. Clause 193 (1) allows the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal to make orders with respect to an agreement appointing a managing agent or a facilities manager. Clause 200 (2) will further encourage attendance at mediation by allowing the tribunal to issue costs orders against the party who, without reasonable excuse, does not attend. In line with the strata reforms of 2015, the bill removes certain provisions relating to tribunal processes and how matters are heard from the community scheme laws, and for consistency leaves them instead to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Similarly, provisions relating to procedural or administrative matters, including the hearing of disputes, have been removed in favour of the provisions set out in the tribunal's laws. These reforms allow the tribunal more consistency and flexibility in the way it deals with disputes. References to adjudication have also been removed from the community schemes laws, and replaced with tribunal applications and orders. The tribunals jurisdiction has been extended to deal with the majority of disputes and to allow it to make orders to deal with matters such as the recovery of outstanding levies from owners, claims for the cost of repairing damage caused to the association property, or disputes about residents causing a nuisance and hazard. Clause 181 removes the previously assumed right to legal representation in mediation and instead, a party to a mediation is not entitled to representation unless all the parties agree to it. Part 12 of the management bill deals with offences and enforcement and for the first time empowers an authorised Fair Trading compliance officer to issue a penalty notice for an appropriate offence against the community land management laws. Offences suitable for being dealt with by way of a penalty notice, which is an on-the-spot fine, would involve clear physical elements that Fair Trading can easily apply to make a reliable and objective assessment of guilt. Penalty notices are an important feature of the Fair Trading compliance toolkit and its introduction to the community land management laws should be welcomed. Throughout the management bill some decisions that previously required a unanimous resolution of the association have been changed to special resolutions. This will simplify decision-making and make the governance of community schemes more democratic, in the sense that the number of important decisions where the vote of a single owner in a scheme can veto a proposal supported by the overwhelming majority has been reduced. A unanimous resolution requires no votes against the proposal, whereas a special resolution is passed if no more than 25 per cent of votes cast at a meeting oppose the motion. In other words, a special resolution passes only with the support of a large majority of the votes cast—at least 75 per cent. The management bill proposes that special resolutions will be required for any change to the basic architectural or landscaping design, essence or theme of a scheme; payment of money in relation to association property; the distribution of surplus association funds; and any dealing that will affect or alter association property, such as the granting of a lease or the creation of an easement. Clause 16 will allow an association to hold its annual general meeting once in each financial year, at a time of its choosing, balancing flexibility with accountability. These reforms respond to the need to bring modern methods of communication, voting and attendance at meetings into what is now a very outdated set of laws. The outdated nature of the means of meeting and voting in these laws was very clear earlier this year when the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions made in-person meetings unviable for many community schemes. While many strata schemes had already adopted electronic means of meeting and voting following the 2015 reforms, this option simply was not available to community schemes. All of them were required to conduct meetings and votes in the old in-person and paper-based way. The Government moved quickly to enact emergency enabling legislation, which allowed for regulations to temporarily override the Act in limited areas. The bill makes permanent those modern options for the governance of community schemes. The management bill recognises email, video or teleconferencing, postal and electronic voting as all valid and permitted methods of managing a scheme, and allows associations to choose the methods that best suit their needs and members. The regulations will allow schemes to choose to distribute papers and hold records electronically, and clause 28 of schedule 1 will introduce procedures for conducting secret ballots. Giving associations the option of holding a secret ballot on an important vote supports democracy in the scheme by giving owners the freedom to vote according to their wishes, without fear for their reputation, or harassment from owners who disagree with them. The secret ballots provisions of the management bill have been modelled on the strata laws and appropriately made available for neighbourhood schemes only, as they are the closest in nature to strata schemes with their single-level structure, and where people are more often voting on their own behalf rather than as representatives of a subsidiary scheme. As in strata, at least 25 per cent of the members of an association attending a meeting would need to support a secret ballot being held in order for it to proceed. The management bill also gives associations the flexibility to adopt a by-law, if they wish, outlining the matters or classes of matters that are to be subject to a secret ballot. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5182

The "initial period" in both strata and community schemes refers to the development phase, from registration of the plan through to the proper handover of management of the scheme from the developer to its lot owners. Currently, the initial period for neighbourhood schemes ends in the same way as for strata schemes—when the original owner or developer has sold lots whose unit entitlement are at least one-third of the total unit entitlements of the whole scheme. That is straightforward enough and works well in both strata and neighbourhood schemes with their single-level structure. But for community and precinct schemes, with their multiple tiers, the method is more complex. The current law provides that the initial period of those schemes ends when at least one‑ third of the total unit entitlements are subdivided by neighbourhood or strata schemes whose own initial periods have already expired. But since not all lots are necessarily subdivided into a subsidiary scheme many community and precinct schemes may remain stuck in their initial period indefinitely, unless they apply to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal for an order to end the initial period. This problem is unique to community schemes and I am pleased to say that the management bill before the House responds by introducing a new reform that was not announced in 2014 when the Government's "Community Title Law Reform Position Paper" was published. The proposed new definition of "initial period" provides that if there is no subsidiary scheme in a community or precinct scheme, the initial period expires on the issue of an occupation certificate under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which is issued when development is completed on land as required by a development consent. This reform brings an effective and automatic trigger into the laws to expire the initial period for community and precinct schemes, without the delay, uncertainty and burden associated with requiring a tribunal order to resolve the situation for owners. I now turn to the reforms contained within the Community Land Development Bill 2020. One of the major attractions of community land development is the ability to structure large, mixed-use schemes or to design a project around a theme. A community plan can be used as a master plan to encourage the best potential land use or allow a project to be developed in stages. The current legislation provides a great deal of flexibility, but there are limitations. I am pleased to say that reforms within the development bill will resolve current limitations by: improving development contracts to give more practicality to developers and greater transparency for purchasers; allowing schemes to be restructured after the development stage to simplify ongoing management; and removing barriers and providing more options for dealing with association property. A development contract is a binding disclosure document that gives details of future development for schemes that will be completed in stages. Part 7 of the proposed development bill makes significant changes to the way that development contracts are used. The changes align with similar provisions in the strata legislation, providing developers with more flexibility, while giving purchasers greater certainty about what is involved in future stages. Currently, development contracts allow a developer to give promises about future stages of a project but they lack the flexibility developers need to complete the scheme. Under existing law it is not mandatory for a development contract to be given with a community or precinct plan. Not surprisingly, as these contracts provide little benefit for developers, they are rarely used. To make these documents more useful, clause 46 of the bill allows a development contract to identify proposals as either: "warranted development"—being proposals that are certain and must be completed by the developer; or "authorised proposals"—being permitted proposals that the developer may complete. Purchasers buying into a staged development need binding information about what is proposed. In return, developers need to know they have the approval of the association up‑ front so that they can stage future work in a planned and coordinated way. If appropriate disclosure is made in the development contract, land can be added to a scheme, additional association property can be created and future easements can be established. This will allow the developer to better time the delivery of facilities like access ways and parkland. A developer will also be able to vary the liability for expenses during the development stage by disclosing in the development contract how contributions will be calculated. The schedule of contributions will itemise expenses, like those relating to the use and maintenance of community property and identify who is responsible for payment. After the development phase, contributions to expenses will be calculated according to unit entitlement in the usual manner. Clause 57 introduces special procedures for association meetings that are called to consider the development concerns identified by the development contract. By requiring meetings at important parts of the development, associations are kept informed of progress. They can scrutinise proposals in advance to make sure that future work is performed in the way it was disclosed. The development contract reforms will have significant benefit for neighbourhood schemes. In contrast to the current requirements for community and precinct schemes, a development contract is always required with a neighbourhood plan. This is so even where development is complete and no further work is planned. Under the proposed bill the developer will have the option to provide a neighbourhood development contract only where services or other facilities will be provided after the plan is registered. This will reduce unnecessary red tape and provide disclosure where it is needed. The changes strike a balance between providing better utility for developers and greater transparency and certainty for purchasers. Purchasers will now have clarity about what is to happen in a scheme before buying into it. As we have seen, a key feature of the community legislation is that it allows development to be staged by registration of a series of subsidiary precinct or neighbourhood plans. This process gives the developer flexibility during the development period but it can leave an overly complex management structure for future owners. Every time a precinct or neighbourhood plan is registered, a new association is formed. If the development is completed in several small stages, a corresponding number of precinct or neighbourhood associations will come into being. This may not be the best structure for ongoing management and will add ongoing cost and complexity. Part 8 of the bill addresses this by providing an innovative, simplified amalgamation process. Using the process, subsidiary precinct or neighbourhood schemes will be able to amalgamate with the parent community scheme after the development phase is complete. Amalgamation will not be an all or nothing proposal. One or more subsidiary schemes can amalgamate even where other precinct or neighbourhood schemes decide to continue as subsidiaries. Amalgamation will have only minimal impact on the title and underlying plans. As a result, individual owners and their mortgagees will not need to sign the application. Owners will have the opportunity to consider and vote on the amalgamation proposal as part of the meeting process needed for approval of the association. An amalgamation application will need to be agreed to by special resolution of the parent community scheme, the amalgamating subsidiary schemes and all other subsidiary schemes not proposing to amalgamate. Following amalgamation, the subsidiary scheme will be terminated and wound up. All association property will vest in the parent community scheme. Lots in the former amalgamated scheme will become lots in the community scheme, allowing the scheme to continue unchanged except by removal of one tier of management. The current community legislation includes several limitations that restrict the way that owners and associations can deal with their land. Community schemes were intended to act as the master plan for a development, so it was originally thought that preventing Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5183

some actions, like adding to a scheme or subdividing association property, would be a safeguard for purchasers. Instead of being a protection, these limitations have become a barrier to change and prevent associations from making decisions about their scheme. To resolve this, part 4 of the development bill gives more freedom to community, precinct and neighbourhood schemes. By passing a special resolution, an association will be able to add land to the scheme, subdivide association property or transfer association property. The changes provide more options, allowing associations to dispose of shared property that may have become unnecessary or to expand shared facilities for the benefits of owners. The current restrictions do not only limit associations but also owners. Owners who may want to expand their property by purchasing adjoining land outside of the scheme are prevented from doing so. Changes to part 3 of the bill will remove this restriction, allowing land to be added to a lot, provided the association agrees. The bill will not remove limitations without protections that prevent a developer making undisclosed changes during the early stages of a scheme when the developer has control. The initial period restrictions have been extended to prevent changes during the initial period unless the action was disclosed in a development contract or has been approved by an order from the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal [NCAT]. With this bill we also take the opportunity to make an amendment to the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015. The management bill inserts a head of power into the Strata Schemes Management Act to enable a mandatory data reporting scheme to be established under the regulations. This amendment gives effect to a project called Strata Portal, the vision of which is a government-run hub of strata governance and building information for the benefit of owners, managing agents, regulators and ultimately any member of the public thinking of investing or living in strata. Stakeholders agree it is too difficult to find basic data about strata schemes as it is fragmented across different platforms and agencies and in many cases is not required to be reported at all. This bill gives the Strata Portal legislative backing to require owners corporations, community associations, or their managing agents, to lodge information on the portal, likely to be in the form of a simple online annual return. This proposal is part of the New South Wales Building Commissioner’s work plan to 2025 to restore public confidence in the new customer‑ facing building industry in New South Wales by providing transparency, accountability and quality. Section 233 (2) (j) of the management bill provides for the regulations to set out the information associations will be required to report as well as access to the information, penalties for noncompliance and the levying of fees. This will provide the flexibility to develop reporting obligations in phases, starting with the consolidation of basic scheme data such as plan details and managing agent and moving later to collection of more advanced documentation related to building compliance such as annual fire safety statements and maintenance plans. Supporting regulations will be developed in close consultation with stakeholders, with the first phase of reporting expected to commence no earlier than 1 July 2021. In conclusion, these bills deliver a package of major reforms for lot owners, residents and developers and managing agents of community lands. The Government acknowledges that the sector has had to wait for these reforms. I thank the community schemes sector for its patience and continued interest as we bring these important reforms to life, delivering the benefits to community schemes that we delivered to strata schemes in 2015. The Community Land Management Bill 2020 and the Community Land Development Bill 2020 completely rewrite the laws governing community schemes. The Government has extensively consulted on both the policy positions and the detailed drafting of the bills and we welcome the broad support from sector stakeholders and the community for the bills. The Government acknowledges that there are aspects of the strata laws that could be improved and some of those aspects are replicated here in the community bills. A statutory review of both the Strata Schemes Management Act and the Strata Schemes Development Act is due to commence by November this year and the Government looks forward to abundant community input to the review. The Government will ensure that reforms recommended by the strata statutory review will be applied to community schemes at the same time where appropriate. The community land management and development bills before the House will ensure that developers, lot owners and residents of these multi-tiered schemes are governed by contemporary and up-to-date laws with the flexibility and balance needed to operate effectively. I commend the bills to the House. Second Reading Debate The Hon. (15:44): At the outset, I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his brilliant inaugural performance. It took 20 seconds for him to incorporate the second reading speech for the Community Land Development Bill 2020 and Community Land Management Bill 2020. That is a good record to set and a good habit to get into. May he continue in such a spirit as he serves as a Parliamentary Secretary. I lead for the Opposition in debate on the bills. I advise the House that the Opposition will not be opposing the legislation. The legislation has been the subject of consultation for a number of years. Members will recall that it was considered when the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 was reviewed in 2011 and then repealed in 2015. These bills go some way towards bringing the legislation into line with the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015. The legislation is very much welcomed by people in the community land development and management sector and by people who have sought to update the legislation for some time. Firstly I will deal with the Community Land Management Bill 2020. This bill duplicates reforms in the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015, except for provisions that reflect the difference of community title. The bill will effect key changes to the manner in which community land operates. The changes include improvement in transparency and accountability of management agents. This legislation is welcomed by association managers who, for example, are required to disclose commissions and agency agreements that have a maximum term of three years only. If a member of an association cannot vote or appoint a proxy to vote during the appointment, they are nevertheless obliged to disclose any pecuniary interest. The initiatives are sound and will strengthen the legislation. In addition, the bill will simplify dispute resolution mechanisms within the scheme, including reducing the burden on the tribunal. That seems like a welcome initiative and it is appreciated by the tribunal and residents alike. Nothing is more burdensome than Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5184

having to attend tribunal hearings, particularly in relation to matters in dispute concerning community land management arrangements. The bill will reduce red tape by simplifying procedures and by providing much greater flexibility for associations to be democratically managed. Those changes are a key feature of the legislation. Significant matters raised by stakeholders include by-laws relating to the management and administration, control, use or enjoyment of the lots in an association scheme or indeed the association property. By-laws cannot be harsh, which is very pleasing for the broader community who come under community land management schemes, and are not to be unconscionable or oppressive. Clause 135 provides that the association property rights by-laws must not be made or changed without the written consent of each person who is entitled under that by-law to use the restricted property. These are sensible changes and they are welcomed by those who live in community land management properties. Part 9 of the bill also makes changes relating to insurance. A property damage insurance policy must cover the building's structure, if it is damaged but not destroyed, to be rebuilt or replaced under the policy with the cost of services incidental to rebuilding also being covered by the insurance policy. Associations are required every five years to obtain valuations of buildings that are required to be insured. The bill also deals with simplifying disputes. A community association may establish voluntary processes for dealing with disputes, which will fast-track the resolution of disputes. The goal of this reform is to hopefully keep people out of the tribunal. Parties to a dispute cannot be legally represented at mediation unless all parties consent to legal representation. Hopefully this reform will create a much better environment for residents of community land title properties. The bill introduces offences and penalties. Clause 216 provides that an interested person may take proceedings for the rectification or condition of part of the building if that condition affects or is likely to affect the shelter provided to that part or any other part of the building or its site. As I have already said, the Labor Opposition will not be opposing the initiatives presented in the bill. The Community Land Development Bill 2020 simplifies community development processes and aligns the community laws with the strata laws in the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015. The key changes that the bill focuses on are aligning the development contract provisions with the strata law; removing unnecessary barriers and red tape, just as is done with the Community Land Management Bill; and giving associations greater flexibility to deal with association property, including the disposal and purchase of some properties within the community land development that was not possible in the past. That is a welcome initiative. It also allows tiered schemes to simplify their structure by amalgamating neighbourhood and precinct schemes with the parent community scheme. The Owners Corporation Network [OCN]—one of the key stakeholders for this group—provided some information to the Labor Opposition and to them we are indebted. It is pleasing to note that the organisation has told the Opposition that proposed provisions in the Community Land Development Bill make it easier for community associations to make dealings, with a number of matters now requiring special resolutions as opposed to unanimous resolutions. This change has been pushed by the OCN and other stakeholders for quite some time, so it is pleasing to see that the Government has finally acted. The Minister and his office have worked cooperatively with all stakeholders, for which the Opposition is grateful. Stakeholders have also advised Labor that both bills appear to achieve the objectives of aligning with provisions of strata legislation. As I outlined at the beginning, one of the key objectives is to reduce red tape and this legislation purports to introduce clearer processes for dealing with disputes; broader tenant participation in meetings, which everyone always wants to see more of; and a simpler approval process. There is no doubt that those living in community land development situations find these bills a welcome initiative and a simplification of the structures and regulations that apply to them. We appreciate the Minister and his staff for briefing the Opposition on these bills with courtesy and in extreme detail. Again, I acknowledge that Labor will not oppose these bills as presented. The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (15:50): On behalf of the Hon. Damien Tudehope: In reply: I thank the Hon. Daniel Mookhey for his contribution to debate on the Community Land Management Bill 2020 and the Community Land Development Bill 2020. As the Government has stated time and again, these bills deliver on a major reform project that commenced in 2011 to overhaul and thoroughly modernise the laws governing strata and community title in New South Wales. These reforms will now bring the community schemes laws into line with the strata schemes laws and completes that landmark reform project from the early years of this Liberal-Nationals Government. As members in this place and the other place have acknowledged, the completion of that reform project is most welcome and will deliver many benefits to the growing number of New South Wales citizens who live in or work with community titled schemes. Those benefits have been amply described during debate on the bills in the other place and include giving associations greater flexibility to deal with association property and allowing tiered schemes to simplify their Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5185

structure by amalgamating neighbourhood and precinct schemes with the parent community scheme. The bills also reduce red tape, improve dispute resolution processes, improve decision-making arrangements for associations and provide better transparency and accountability of managing agents. The bills demonstrate this Government's continued commitment to ensuring that the laws governing the development and management of community schemes remain up to date, flexible and, importantly, align with the governance of the burgeoning New South Wales strata sector. I commend the bills to the House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. ): The question is that these bills be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. Third Reading The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN: On behalf of the Hon. Damien Tudehope: I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. MARINE POLLUTION AMENDMENT (REVIEW) BILL 2020 Second Reading Speech The Hon. (15:54): On behalf of the Hon. Don Harwin: I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Marine Pollution Act to implement the findings of the statutory review of that Act. The objectives of the Marine Pollution Act are to give effect to Australia's obligations as a signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, commonly referred to as MARPOL, in New South Wales, and in doing so protect New South Wales waters from marine pollution from vessels. Honourable members, the review found that the objectives of the Act remain valid and that some amendments are required to further support those objectives. These amendments are to improve consistency of coverage of vessels across New South Wales, to strengthen the protection of New South Wales State waters from pollution from vessels, in particular sewage pollution, to streamline and simplify the Act, and to update the Act to align with national and international best practice in shipping and port operations. Pollution from vessels poses a threat to New South Wales' State waters and this bill represents a significant step towards ensuring the quality of our waterways is maintained. These legislative changes also ensure that New South Wales facilitates the international shipping trade that our economy relies on, and supports the efficient movement of vessels both within New South Wales and between New South Wales and other jurisdictions. Globally, the MARPOL convention has contributed to a significant decrease in pollution from international shipping. Global shipping trade has been expanding at around 3 per cent per year for the last 50 years. Despite this growth in shipping, instances of oil spills have continued to decrease. Notably, the introduction of operational and construction regulations to MARPOL was a critical driver for the decline of oil pollution over the last 30 years. The number of large oil spills, those greater than 700 tonnes, has reduced from an average of 24.5 per year in the 1970s to an average of 1.9 per year by the two thousand and tens [2010s]. Similarly, the number of small to medium oil spills have also reduced. MARPOL now has 159 signatory countries worldwide, including Australia, and applies to almost 99 per cent of the world's merchant shipping. MARPOL is part of a framework developed by governments at the International Maritime Organization that facilitates international trade by applying consistent global requirements and ensures that shipping operates safely, securely and cleanly. Commonwealth legislation implements MARPOL in Australia, and the States and the Northern Territory have complementary legislation giving effect to these requirements in their jurisdictions. MARPOL has six annexes that cover pollution from ships by oil, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances in packaged form, sewage, garbage and air pollution. The New South Wales Marine Pollution Act gives effect to five of the annexes, with air pollution covered by the Commonwealth only, primarily by enforcing internationally agreed fuel standards. I will now explain the key amendments outlined in this bill. The statutory review noted that under current legislation, different pollution requirements apply for vessels in coastal waters compared to vessels in inland waters, and they apply under different Acts. Currently, pollution from all vessels on inland waters is primarily regulated by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, while vessels in coastal and port waters are regulated under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act or the Marine Pollution Act. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5186

To address this, the bill will broaden the application of the Marine Pollution Act to cover all 'State waters' including estuaries and inland waters such as the Murray, Murrumbidgee and Darling Rivers, as well as coastal waters and port waters. This means applying consistent standards for vessels across all New South Wales waters. To align New South Wales legislation with national and international standards under Commonwealth law and MARPOL, the Marine Pollution Act will also now apply to recreational vessels that are currently only covered under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. It also brings New South Wales in line with other States and the Northern Territory, which do not exclude recreational vessels from their relevant marine pollution legislation. This change provides a consistent and equitable approach to addressing pollution from all vessels, based on vessel size rather than use. Under these amendments, recreational vessels may have some new administrative requirements that apply mostly to larger vessels which generally have a gross tonnage of 400 or more or that are certified to carry 15 or more people. Let me be clear—these administrative requirements do not apply to smaller recreational vessels like kayaks or tinnies that fall below the relevant sizes. They do apply to larger recreational vessels, like yachts and other vessels carrying 15 or more people. To give some context of vessel sizes, you will all be familiar with the iconic Manly ferries. These large vessels have a gross tonnage, a measure of the enclosed space of a vessel, of 1,100 and can carry over 1,000 people. The smaller RiverCat ferries that carry passengers on the Parramatta River have a gross tonnage of around 60 and carry 230 people. Recreational vessels come in all sizes, with many able to carry 15 or more people such as superyachts and other cruisers. There are also many smaller fishing boats and other recreational vessels that carry less than 10 people. The administrative requirements mostly relate to managing garbage on the vessel and include requiring relevant vessels to have a garbage sticker that informs crew and passengers of garbage disposal requirements, and a garbage management plan that covers steps for minimising and disposing of garbage. Larger vessels may need to record their garbage disposal and have an oil pollution emergency management plan that covers the procedures to deal with an oil pollution incident. The effect of this change is to make clear in the Act the administrative requirements for some recreational vessel owners, which are not very onerous. Honourable members, we know that on the whole, recreational vessel owners want to do the right thing. These requirements serve as a reminder about managing garbage properly and what to do in the event of an oil spill, when you are out enjoying our magnificent waterways. We want to keep things user friendly, with straightforward messages and easy to access information on what boat owners need to do. Recreational boating peak organisations were consulted on these changes and they indicated their support for measures to protect New South Wales' marine environment. These organisations will continue to be engaged to develop clear and appropriate materials to explain these requirements for everyday recreational boaters. An important part of the Marine Pollution Act is its coverage of sewage pollution. Untreated sewage poses serious risks to human health and the marine environment. The Marine Pollution Act prohibits the discharge of untreated sewage into our waters. To strengthen the prevention of sewage pollution, the bill introduces a new offence. It will be an offence for vessels to have defective, altered or modified sewage systems that can allow illegal discharges of sewage. I want to emphasise that this is a preventative measure to enforce sewage requirements before a pollution incident actually occurs. Vessel owners have a range of options for managing sewage, including a holding tank to store sewage for discharge to a reception facility and using an approved sewage treatment system. The poor maintenance of these systems, or improper modifications or alterations could mean a system is not able to meet requirements. In some instances, it could enable or disguise illegal discharges. This new offence will support the enforcement of the Act's existing sewage discharge requirements. Two other Act amendments will assist with strengthening the protection of the environment. One allows the State to take the proactive measure of requiring pollutants like oil to be removed from vessels that are derelict, abandoned, or out of commission, to remove the potential for a pollution incident before it occurs. While the State can already take preventative actions to deal with marine pollution, there must first be a discharge or a likelihood of a discharge. This does not adequately cover instances where derelict or out -of -commission vessels are not attended to, or are abandoned by the owner. This amendment enhances the State's ability to take preventative measures to remove risks to the marine environment on behalf of the community. The second is to remove the prerequisite that the State must determine that the vessel is likely to depart New South Wales waters before it can be detained to recover costs from responding to a pollution incident. The current situation is that in response to a marine pollution incident vessels can be detained until the costs incurred in clean-up or taking preventative action are reimbursed, or security is given. However, this power to detain is conditional on believing that the vessel will depart State waters before the investigation is completed. Removing that prerequisite means this power can be used in situations where the vessel is unlikely to depart State waters, such as when the vessel is damaged or in distress. The bill also includes amendments to streamline and simplify the Act, and updates to align with national and international trends in shipping and port operations. These include removing unnecessary or outdated regulatory requirements such as needing written permission to conduct oil or chemical transfers at night which is outdated given that our ports now operate 24/7. MARPOL has been revised by the International Maritime Organization a number of times since the Marine Pollution Act came into force so these updates will be incorporated. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5187

The most significant MARPOL revisions since 2012 were amendments to the garbage pollution requirements. The amendments reverse the historical presumption that garbage can be discharged into the sea based on the type of garbage and distances from shore. MARPOL now prohibits the discharge of all garbage into the sea unless explicitly permitted or in emergency situations. This bill incorporates these and other amendments to MARPOL, including a significant number of minor changes due to renaming and restructuring in MARPOL and Commonwealth legislation. All these amendments I have outlined were identified during the Act review, and were consulted on with industry stakeholders, recreational vessel users, the public and relevant government bodies and other organisations. A discussion paper on the review was advertised for public consultation, and over 90 targeted stakeholders including international shipping, the commercial boating industry, recreational boating users and environmental organisations were invited to provide feedback. The Transport for NSW Recreational Vessel Advisory Group and the Commercial Vessel Advisory Group were consulted on the review. The Insurance Council of Australia, the Boating Industry Association and the Commercial Vessel Association were also engaged and any concerns raised have been addressed in the review, or will be considered in the subsequent review of the Marine Pollution Regulations. Honourable members, the State is committed to working with industry and the community during implementation of these amendments to make sure any administrative requirements are user friendly. This includes a commitment to an education and awareness campaign to ensure the boating community understand the marine pollution prevention measures in place in New South Wales and their individual responsibilities. The review was guided by the New South Wales Government better regulation principles and found that government action on marine pollution is necessary and proportional and that the Act provides an effective mechanism for setting pollution prevention requirements and for addressing incidents. In summary, this bill makes important changes to ensure that New South Wales has robust laws to prevent and effectively address pollution from vessels and that New South Wales receives the benefits of harmonisation with national and international standards. I commend the bill to the House. Second Reading Debate The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (15:54): On behalf of the Opposition, I lead in debate on the Marine Pollution Amendment (Review) Bill 2020 and thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his second reading speech. I will address the bill and then give some context surrounding the bill. I note that the amendments to the bill arise from a statutory review, and it is for that reason and the consultation that has followed that the Opposition will not be opposing the bill. The bill makes a number of amendments, including ensuring that the different pollution requirements that currently apply to vessels in coastal waters compared to vessels in inland waters are now brought together. That is particularly welcome. The Marine Pollution Act will now apply also to recreational vehicles, which currently are only covered under the protection of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. The bill also strengthens provisions for sewage pollution by introducing a new offence of vessels with defective, altered or modified sewage systems that can allow illegal discharges of sewage. A number of other amendments to the Act further strengthen measures in the protection of the environment. One of these amendments allows the State to take proactive measures to require pollutants like oil to be removed from vessels that are derelict, abandoned or out of commission in order to remove the potential for a pollution incident before it occurs. A second amendment is to remove the prerequisite that the State must determine whether a vehicle is likely to depart New South Wales waters before it can be detained to recover costs from responding to a pollution incident. That second matter seems like a commonsense approach to regulation, certainly to the Opposition. The bill includes other amendments that streamline and simplify the Act to bring it in line with national and international trends in shipping and port operations. As I stated, these amendments were identified in the statutory review of the Act, which gives the Opposition some comfort in not opposing the bill. Despite the measures that the Government has taken and as outlined in the other place and in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, I note that there was very little response from the community to the bill. Only eight submissions were received. The Government has indicated that no concerns were raised about the objectives of the bill, but it is a very low response from the community. For that reason, we do express some caution. We will be looking to see how these measures roll out, and we will reserve our rights in relation to certain aspects of the bill. One of those aspects relates to regulations that will be exercised as part of the bill, such as defining the vessels that may be impacted. We have reserved our rights to move a disallowance motion if the regulations prove to be too onerous, inadequate or misplaced at this time, though I hope that will not be the case. However, we place that on record because those measures are yet to happen and consultation was quite modest, I think is the best way to put it. We recognise the Boating Industry Association and the role it has played in consultation on the bill. Further, we call for better education on pollution prevention. That is essential if the bill is to succeed on the water. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5188

I recognise the contributions in the other place, including that of my colleague the member for The Entrance, Mr David Mehan. I also note that the member for Terrigal spoke on the bill. Both members talked about the events of 24 May when the Singaporean-flagged vessel APL England hit rough seas 73 kilometres off the coast of New South Wales and 50 containers washed overboard, causing significant damage and significant risk to other boating vessels. The members also spoke about the action the Government took and the threat to the beautiful coastline along the Central Coast. I conclude my remarks in this context: The Opposition supports these measures and in some ways going as far as possible in this area of public policy. This legislation is part of a broad change that is occurring across our waterways, most of all on Sydney Harbour. The changes that have occurred to Sydney Harbour in recent decades have resulted in the water being cleaner than ever. I note calls in recent weeks to extend the cleaning of Sydney Harbour to deal with industrial pollutants on the seabed. When it comes to Sydney Harbour or other waterways around the State, we are in a position to correct the errors of the past and double-down on cleaning our marine environments in order not only to strengthen greatly the tourism prospects of our State but also to transform these beautiful places around our State. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): Order! According to sessional order, proceedings are now interrupted for questions. Questions Without Notice MURWILLUMBAH SCHOOL CLOSURES The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (16:00): My question without notice is directed to the Deputy Leader of the Government and Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. What is the Minister's response to the concerns of parents in the Murwillumbah community who say they have not had their views heard about her plan to sell and merge four schools in the area? When will the Minister fulfil her commitment to visit the area to meet with parents and the community face to face? The Hon. (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:00): I thank the Hon. Adam Searle for his question in relation to the fantastic education precinct that we have planned for Murwillumbah. I think it is a really exciting opportunity for that community, as I have said many times when this issue has been raised in the House. The Hon. Adam Searle has asked specifically about community concerns or feedback that I believe he has indicated from parents about not having the opportunity to be involved in any consultation. My response is that some initial consultation has occurred. As I have said in the House on previous occasions, that is initial consultation. We are looking at a 2024 opening for that new school. Of course that means that we will have plenty of time to continue to involve the parents and the wider community in relation to that particular school project. I know that there are opportunities for virtual information. I also know that a survey was sent out and closed not long ago seeking feedback and there has been targeted consultation with the teachers, particularly, in specific subject areas about what the needs may be in a new school. I know that not long ago a senior departmental officer met with the P&C from one of the schools. It is a matter that I continue to be updated on as it progresses. I am told that there is a community hub opening next week. From the community survey that was carried out throughout summer, we received approximately 200 responses. Consultation is underway and it will continue. I visited that school community with some of my colleagues, including the Hon. Ben Franklin. We visited one of the high school sites when the Government made the announcement and we made the commitment that we will be back. That commitment stands. I am very happy to go to Murwillumbah to talk to the community and parents about what the Government is doing there and why we are doing it. As I think I might have said in the House previously, I wanted to get the feedback from the community survey collated in order to understand the issues that have been raised. Next week's community hub also will provide an opportunity for feedback. I have every intention of visiting Murwillumbah and I suspect that will occur multiple times over the next few years as this build progresses. It will be a great project for that community. I know it will be a success. NSW GOVERNMENT GRADUATE PROGRAM The Hon. (16:02): My question is addressed to the Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations. Will the Minister update the House on what the Government is doing to create employment opportunities for recent university graduates? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:03): I am delighted to do so. I thank the Hon. Lou Amato for his question on the New South Wales Government's Graduate Program. I am absolutely thrilled to Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5189

announce that the New South Wales Government has been named as Australia's most popular graduate employer for 2021 in the Australian Financial Review's Top 100 Graduate Employers list. In fact, we went from fourth place in 2019 to first place for 2020. Our Graduate Program was also awarded the Most Popular Government and Defence Employer in the country for the third year running. So now to the details of the program: The New South Wales Government introduced the Graduate Program as a way to attract and retain talented graduates, build public sector capability and develop our leaders for the future. The program comprises two streams: a primary stream which is open to all graduates no matter what degree they have, and a legal stream for graduates looking for a career pathway as a solicitor. The program goes for 18 months, starting in February each year, and comprises three six-month placements in different roles across New South Wales. Graduates can nominate for the functional areas of interest for the roles they wish to try. This includes public policy, service delivery, finance, human resources, analytics and much more. The program began in 2016 with a small cohort of just 25 graduates. In just the four years since then, that number has grown to nearly 200. In that time we have placed over 800 graduates, who bring their fresh, new ideas and innovation to the New South Wales public sector. This well-regarded employment initiative continues to attract high-calibre talent and it is in huge demand. For the 2021 program alone we received an astounding 6,000 applications. Experience shows that graduates progress quickly throughout their careers following completion of the program. Of the 2016 and 2017 cohorts, 46 per cent moved to a role at least two grades higher than their starting grade within one year of completing the program. By the two-year mark, 28 per cent of the 2016 cohort had moved to a role that was at least three grades higher. It is therefore unsurprising why the program is so popular. Another one of the great features of the program is its commitment to supporting employment in regional New South Wales. The Government is also committed to ensuring inclusion and opportunity for all sectors of the community, and that includes an above-average intake of Aboriginal graduates and graduates with a disability. We are proud of delivering such a great, award-winning opportunity for so many young people. The Graduate Program is part of our commitment to deliver a world-class public service. [Time expired.] SCHOOL AND CHILDCARE CENTRE CYBERSECURITY The Hon. (16:06): My question without notice is directed to the Deputy Leader of the Government, the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. What is the Minister's response to community and parent concerns that recently computer hackers gained access to surveillance cameras in childcare centres and schools on 11 March? What steps is the Minister taking to ensure the safety of schools and childcare centres in New South Wales that have cameras? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:06): I thank the Hon. Penny Sharpe for her question about a very important and serious issue. I am happy to take on notice the detail of her question in relation to that particular matter and what is being done. Obviously in terms of that response I need to seek advice from the department and the schools but also from the early childhood sector. I am happy to take the question on notice, obtain some more detail, and come back to the member with an answer. TALLAWARRA POWER STATION The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (16:07): My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Small Business, representing the Treasurer. Is the Government committed to a strong gas industry in New South Wales, especially given the importance of gas to small business? Given that the Minister for Energy and Environment has said that "gas has no future in New South Wales", will senior economic Ministers now override Minister Kean and ensure that the planned Tallawarra B gas plant extension goes ahead on a level footing with other parts of the Government's electricity infrastructure road map, creating jobs and energy security for small business, in particular? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:08): I thank the Hon. Rod Roberts for his question. There is no doubt that in this place all parties except two have voted for an energy plan. That debate was covered in some detail on the last sitting day in 2020. I am sure members will recall that day. The Hon. Adam Searle: Days. I do. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Or days. But what I say to the member is this: If you are looking for what Government is doing in relation to supporting small business, there is a plethora of actions the Government is taking to make sure that small business is supported, such as stimulus programs through direct grants, opportunities in procurement policy and opportunities for rebates available to small business. To the extent that there is a question mark about whether the Government will override the energy Minister in relation to energy Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5190

policy, that is a question for the Cabinet. The Treasurer of course would make his decision based on information available to him in relation to that. I say to the member, do not be suggesting for one moment that this is a government not cognisant of the obligation to support small business. Whether it be in relation to energy policy or whether it be in relation to a response to a pandemic, every single decision made by the Government has been with a view to making sure that as many businesses as possible are able to survive that pandemic. I point to one specific thing in particular— The Hon. Mark Latham: Point of order: It is on the question of relevance. The Minister has been given latitude, but drifting onto the pandemic when the question is about Tallawarra B extension is a long way from the point of the question. The PRESIDENT: The Minister was asked a very wide question. It reads: Given that the Minister for Energy and Environment has said that "gas has no future in New South Wales", will senior economic Ministers now override Minister Kean and ensure that the planned Tallawarra B gas plant extension goes ahead on a level footing with other parts of the Government's electricity infrastructure road map, creating jobs and energy security for small business, in particular? It is a very wide question that covers many areas. The Minister is being directly relevant. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I point out in particular that next month a rebate policy is available to small businesses that do not qualify for payroll tax deferrals or in fact, in the circumstances of payroll tax, where they have the benefit of additional payroll tax thresholds. No-one can doubt the commitment of government to small business and in fact the opportunity to obtain rebates by small business in respect of their obligations. [Time expired.] The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (16:12): I ask a supplementary question. Will Tallawarra B go ahead? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:12): I thank the member for his supplementary question. It is a question more appropriately put to the Minister for Energy and Environment and, on that basis, I will take the question on notice. CONSENT EDUCATION The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK (16:12): My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. Consent in our society, and particularly for our young people, has been in the spotlight recently. Will the Minister advise the House on how New South Wales provides consent education to students? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:12): I thank the member for a very important question. I am sure members of the House would join me in acknowledging the bravery of the many young women who have shared their experiences recently in relation to some of those issues, particularly those who have done so on the petition site run by Chanel Contos. I have read many of their distressing accounts and I am sure many others in the House have too, and I do think we should acknowledge those young women. I had the opportunity to meet with Chanel virtually recently—she is based in the UK, as members would know—and she is certainly a very capable and intelligent young woman. I think it is important that we are talking about this topic, particularly in light of the work that Chanel is doing. It is really important that we have a strong and robust curriculum that provides students with explicit and consistent consent education. That is why consent and respectful relationships education was strengthened in the new mandatory PDHPE kindergarten to year 10 syllabus for all students at every single New South Wales school. The new PDHPE syllabus, which was introduced in 2018, mandates the explicit and age-appropriate teaching of consent from kindergarten to year 10 in both public and non-government schools. The updated syllabus focuses on respectful relationships, sexual harassment, discrimination and, importantly, the clear and age-appropriate teaching of consent. The new syllabus was rolled out in 2018 after extensive consultation with academics, students and teachers, with full implementation in every New South Wales school by the beginning of 2020. We conducted research and had discussions and what we found was a need and desire from the community to have consent more explicitly taught in our curriculum. Research also identified that best practice in respectful relationships education involves a sustained and systematic approach, which is why it is so important that consent is taught over the whole period of schooling. That led to us developing one of the most explicit consent content in PDHPE curriculums in the country. Year 11 and 12 students in New South Wales government schools also extend their learning about respectful relationships and consent, protective strategies, power, abuse and violence as part of the mandatory 25-hour Life Ready course. We have offered that program to the non-government sector as well and it has been well received. Schools play an obvious and important role in educating about consent, but progressing the issue of consent and respecting women in our society goes well beyond the classroom. That is why we are engaged in work across Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5191

the sector to broaden how young people engage with the issue and what other information and support they would benefit from. We are working with a range of partners in that, including the Department of Education, independent schools, Catholic schools and the NSW Education Standards Authority, along with New South Wales police, people like the Advocate for Children and Young People, Zoe Robinson, and the Minister's Student Council so that we have a student voice. It is important that when we talk about an approach to these issues, it does not just include students and teachers but also parents and the wider school community. This is a challenging issue and it is vital that we continue working together to ensure that a cultural shift occurs not only in our schools but also in every workplace, institution, and household both across the State and throughout the nation. [Time expired.] PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING Mr (16:16): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. At the end of 2019 public schools held $1.5 billion in unspent money in their accounts, largely as a result of the failure of the Local Schools, Local Decisions policy. In estimates we learned that after multiple commitments and some policy changes from the Minister, at the end of 2020 the amount held in those same accounts was now $1.49 billion. Does the Minister stand by the evidence that her department gave at estimates that she was driving this figure down and will she explain what has gone so horribly wrong with her response? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:16): I thank the member for his question, an issue that, as he rightly says, was well canvassed at the budget estimates hearing—in the morning session and I think again in the afternoon session when I had finished up. Do I stand by the comments that were made in terms of what we are doing to drive down that underspend in bank accounts? Yes, I do. I think what is important to note—and I believe that the secretary and our chief operating officer gave evidence to this effect—is particularly when we look at the underspend for the last financial year, the amount of money that had gone out to our schools and the actual underspend for that financial year was billions of dollars. I do not have the figures in front of me but I will get them. My recollection is that the only underspend was $17 million. What we have been able to do in that year is drive down how much was in those bank accounts and that is because we have started, as I said in estimates and which was well canvassed in estimates, looking at what we can do to decrease the amount of accumulated funds that are sitting there. Again, as we have spoken about with the member too, about half of that money was raised by schools. The member would be well aware of that. One of the programs that we have announced just recently in the budget was our renewal projects, which we are doing with regional and metro communities to look at how we can bring forward infrastructure projects that are helping to spend some of those budgets to get projects up and running that schools want—co-contributions between school amounts and government amounts to get those projects up and running. I will probably have a little bit more to say about that later in question time. There is a lot of work being done in this space. Clearly there is more to do but that is why we are providing more targeted support to our schools to spend the money in the year that it has been allocated. I am confident in the processes that we have in place. As I said, over the last year or so we have been able to bring in new programs to support schools to spend this money. That is something that will continue to be a key priority of the Department of Education and I have every faith in its ability to do that. Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE (16:18): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister further develop her response and indicate whether that includes a target for the amount of funds at the end of 2021? If so, is that target $1.48 billion? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:19): I tell you what, we are going to miss that humour when you are in the Senate. It is a serious question and I should not make light of it. In terms of a target, as I said, the actual spend last year was incredibly pleasing in terms of the amount that was underspent across the system. I will provide those figures on notice to the member because I do not have them in my notes in front of me and I do not want to get them wrong and mislead the House in any way. It is a target to make sure that we are helping the schools spend money. We have said that quite openly in estimates. As I said, the work that the department is doing in that space is important because the intention of the funding that is going to our schools is that it is spent on students in the year group to which it is allocated. That will continue to be a priority for me as Minister and also for the department. The Hon. (16:20): I ask a second supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate on the amount of money that has not been spent? Is there currently consideration of a time in which the money has to be spent? So not an explicit target for next year, but is there an end date for when the money has to be spent? Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5192

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:20): As I said, we are working with the school communities to drive down that underspend. That is funding that is being provided to those schools in recognition of the student cohort that they have. That is how our Resource Allocation Model funding works. We want to make sure that money is spent in schools to help the students that it has been provided to support. There is a range of things— The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume her seat. The Clerk will stop the clock. Mr David Shoebridge asked a question. I allowed him to ask a supplementary question. I have allowed a second supplementary question. If the two honourable members want to have a discussion with each other at a lower level, that is fine, but do not interject when the Minister is answering. The Minister has the call. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: As I said, the priority is working with our school communities to get that money spent on the students to whom it has been allocated. That will continue to be our priority. The member asked if there is a time line or a period of time that— The Hon. Courtney Houssos: An end date. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: An end date in terms of that. There is not because, as I said, what we want to do is spend that money in the school communities where it has been allocated. I said I would take it on notice but in terms of the funding that was allocated to our schools last year, the advice that I have—again, I believe it was given in estimates evidence—is that we had $11.7 billion allocated to schools last year and of that only $17 million was underspent. So when we look at what we are doing on a year-by-year basis, we are driving down that underspend and making sure that we are working with our schools to have that money spent. That is 0.2 per cent of the budget, which I think is a fairly successful year. We also need to recognise that our School Success Model, which I have spoken about many times in the House, is about identifying targets for our schools and looking at where we can see improvement and lift when it comes to student outcomes. A big part of that will be targeting the funding that is going to schools to help them spend it on the areas where it will make the most difference. Again, all these policies together with the reform we want to see in terms of education and lifting student outcomes will be covered by the work we are doing with the School Success Model and, as I said, that extra financial support that we are providing to our school principals to spend that money. HOSPITAL STAFF PARKING FEES The Hon. (16:23): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women, representing the Minister for Health and Medical Research. What is her response to community concerns that the Government is penalising frontline health workers by reintroducing paid parking for hospital staff, effectively taxing them up to $1,000 per year on top of freezing their wages? The Hon. (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:23): I thank the honourable member for his question, which was directed to Minister Hazzard in the other place, whom I represent in this place. His question was quite specific in terms of parking. The Government has very much supported frontline staff during the pandemic. There has never been a time when frontline health staff have been more respected by everybody across the Chamber for the incredible job that they have done. I know the Government— The PRESIDENT: The Clerk will stop the clock. Hiding behind a pole does not help the member interjecting; I can hear clearly. The honourable member knows who I am referring to, as does her colleague, who is sitting slightly in front of her to her right. I am in a very good mood today, which is why I am not calling members to order. But it will get to a stage when I will start calling members to order. The Minister has the call. The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR: As I was saying, there has never been a time in New South Wales when we have been more proud of our healthcare workers. We have supported them and provided accommodation, if necessary, and free parking for a period of time. We all know they deserve support and they have done an incredibly tremendous job under exceptional circumstances, the likes of which we have never seen before—so much so that internationally people are looking to New South Wales to see how our staff performed and what they did. The devolution of decisions down to local health districts across New South Wales has ensured a robust health system that is very connected to its community and its people. That has been demonstrated in the incredible results that we have seen. In terms of parking, I will take that part of the question on notice and endeavour to respond to the member in a timely manner. NSW WOMEN OF THE YEAR AWARDS The Hon. (16:25): My question is addressed to the Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women. Will the minister update the House on the 2021 NSW Women of the Year Awards? Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5193

The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women) (16:26): I thank the honourable member for his question. What a sensational week NSW Women's Week was last week. Some 30 of the State's most inspirational women were recognised in the 2021 NSW Women of the Year Awards at the International Convention Centre last Wednesday. The event is now in its tenth year and the awards celebrate the achievements of women across the State from all walks of life. I am pleased to say that in 2021 we received the largest number of nominations in the history of the awards. The 2021 NSW Women of the Year Award winners come from a diverse range of backgrounds and are all inspirational. The New South Wales Chief Health Officer, Dr Kerry Chant, was named the NSW Premier's Woman of the Year and the NSW Woman of Excellence. Those two awards recognise Dr Chant's commendable efforts to support the health of the people of New South Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout COVID-19, Dr Chant has been a trusted and familiar face seen every day, offering vital health information for our State. She is an inspiration for all women. Her leadership and dedication to her job ensured that New South Wales was kept safe. Her work has been applauded at home and abroad. Inclusivity champion June Riemer has been named Cancer Institute NSW Aboriginal Woman of the Year. Ms Riemer has been a strong advocate for Aboriginal people and those living with a disability for over 40 years. Grace Brennan, who started the social movement Buy From The Bush, has taken out the NSW Regional Woman of the Year award. Ms Brennan's story is incredible. She started the initiative from her kitchen table and it has resulted in a $5 million revenue uplift for participating regional businesses. Grace and I have lots of chats about what is happening with mice in western New South Wales. We have had quite a bonding experience over it. Fundraising powerhouse and lifelong volunteer Jean Vickery has taken out the Aware Super NSW Community Hero award. Ms Vickery is in her 80s and is consistently the first to roll her sleeves up and help. She is very deserving of this award and she was an absolute sensation on the day. Dr Samantha Wade was named the Harvey Norman NSW Young Woman of the Year for her contribution to cancer research. The research team that she is part of is looking to help with pancreatic cancer by putting a tiny implant into the pancreas that would release sustained chemotherapy. It is incredible work that will hopefully be tested in up to four years. Fifteen-year-old Molly Croft won the One to Watch award. Molly is an outstanding young woman who drew on her own journey with an extremely rare bone sarcoma to support sick children and their families. She has raised more than $185,000. In addition, more than 80 women received MP-nominated Local Woman of the Year awards, celebrating the award in their communities. All of these women are shining examples of the tremendous efforts women make in their families, communities and chosen fields. [Time expired.] BOOTI BOOTI NATIONAL PARK The Hon. (16:29): My question without notice is directed to the Hon. Don Harwin, representing the Minister for Energy and Environment. Is the Minister aware of the recent announcement of the permanent closure of the four-wheel drive track to McBrides Beach in Booti Booti National Park and that the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service claimed that the reason for the closure was that it did not have the funding to maintain the track, despite it being in the plan of management for the past 30 years? Is the Minister also aware that in the month of November and December last year, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service approached other user groups and offered them inducements to express negative views towards restoring the four-wheel drive access? Who in the Minister's office or department authorised, endorsed and encouraged the blatant bribery of those groups? Will the Minister now reopen the track and ensure its restoration and maintenance is funded properly? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:30): The Hon. Mark Banasiak's question has raised some very serious issues, which deserve a response. I am sure the Minister will be interested to hear of them and will obtain the information that is needed to ensure that the honourable member's questions and concerns are adequately answered. I will take the question on notice and refer it to the Minister. MARK SCOTT REMUNERATION PACKAGE The Hon. (16:30): My question without notice is directed to the Deputy Leader of the Government and Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. Will departing Education secretary Mr Mark Scott receive a payout prior to taking up his new position? Will the Minister provide details of Mr Scott's exit remuneration package? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:31): I thank the honourable member for his question. It is a good opportunity to put on the record my thanks to Mark Scott for his time as Secretary of the Department of Education. He has done a fantastic job, particularly in leading many of the reforms that we have underway. I have really enjoyed working with him over the past couple Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5194

of years. Certainly, our loss is the 's gain and I am sure we all wish him well in that new position. In relation to any remuneration or the processes we need to go through, the member would be clearly aware that there are relevant requirements relating to those matters. I am happy to take the question on notice and provide the member with some more information through those channels. The Hon. WALT SECORD (16:32): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate her answer? When she provides the details of Mr Scott's remuneration package, will she also provide a timetable for his replacement? The PRESIDENT: Order! The supplementary question does not come within the scope of the original question or the answer provided by the Minister. The supplementary question is out of order. COVID-19 AND BUSINESS CONFIDENCE The Hon. (16:32): My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Small Business. How do recent survey results demonstrate the New South Wales Government's COVID-19 response is boosting business and consumer confidence in New South Wales? The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business) (16:33): I thank the member for his question. Gee, I like polls. Don't you like polls and surveys? The Hon. Walt Secord: The Parliamentary Friends of Poland met today. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Are you still the shadow Treasurer? The PRESIDENT: Order! The Clerk will stop the clock. I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order for the first time. I call the Hon. Damien Tudehope to order for the first time. Maybe members would not interject so often if Ministers did not respond to the interjections. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: Thank you, Mr President. I always acknowledge the fairness of your rulings. This Government is focused on jobs, jobs and more jobs: keeping people in jobs, getting people back to work and keeping the economy open so small businesses around the State can continue to welcome customers in a COVID-safe way. A recent critical poll—a survey conducted—has shed some light on just how well the New South Wales Government has tackled this global pandemic head on. This poll shows that New South Wales is on the right track: that we are focused on jobs and our post-pandemic economic recovery, unlike some of those opposite. The polling I refer to, of course, is not the polling conducted by a couple of unions but the polling that has been conducted by the NAB Monthly Business Survey for February. Business confidence rose from plus 14 index points in January to plus— The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I did not want to interrupt the Hon. Penny Sharpe. It would have been very rude of me to interrupt her while she was interjecting. I call the Hon. Penny Sharpe to order for the first time—for the fourth interjection. Before I call the Minister, I remind all honourable members of two very important things. Firstly, it really is not fair to Hansard to have to keep up with the continual interjections and members talking over a Minister when he is responding to a question. It is impossible. Secondly, it is incredibly difficult for me to rule on whether a first or second supplementary question is in order if I do not have the opportunity to properly hear what the Minister is saying. The Minister has the call. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I understand that those opposite do not like hearing this stuff, because it is good news. They do not like it. There is a whole problem they have in their psyche; they say, "Please don't come in here and tell us good news." That is what we are doing: We are telling them that business confidence is on the rise, consumer confidence is on the rise and people in New South Wales are feeling pretty good about themselves. The NAB summed it up by stating: … the turnaround in business conditions and steady improvement in confidence is translating to higher capacity utilisation and increased investment. The survey continues to point to a robust recovery in the business sector … This is a positive sign for the economy … I know those opposite do not like hearing this. These polls are simply a good indication of the impact of our policies, our response to the pandemic and whether we are headed in the right direction. There is always more work to do, but the people of New South Wales can be confident that the Liberal-Nationals Government is putting— The Hon. Walt Secord: Hubris. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: No, it is not hubris. The Hon. Walt Secord: You have been warned. The Treasurer warned you. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5195

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Clerk will stop the clock. The Minister will resume his seat. I call the Hon. Walt Secord to order for the second time. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: This is not hubris. It is acknowledging: Do not talk the economy down. Be prepared to talk it up. Be prepared to say, "Get out there and spend a dollar," and make sure that we support New South Wales small business—the best place to live, have a family and bring up your children. FIREPLACE BAN The Hon. (16:38): My question without notice is directed to the Hon. Don Harwin, representing the Minister for Energy and Environment. Did the Minister consult with the Deputy Premier and leader of the NSW Nationals, , prior to announcing his proposal to phase out fireplaces in people's homes? If so, did the Deputy Premier explain to the Minister that some farmers rely on the burning of wood for cooking and most rely on wood heaters to keep their homes warm? Is the Minister aware that this out-of-touch, elitist and city-centric decision will have significant impact on regional communities and particularly on farmers, who will bear the greatest financial impost because of increased and unaffordable electricity prices? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:38): I hear the question that the honourable member is asking but I fear that the premise of his question is seriously flawed regarding his statement as to what the Minister has or has not said. The position of the Government is clear: We are not in any way interested in the sort of thing that the honourable member mentioned in his question. I think the Minister for Energy and Environment would welcome an opportunity to make that clear. I am happy to refer the question to him and give him the opportunity to supply an answer to the Hon. Robert Borsak. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CONSULTANTS The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (16:39): My question is directed to the Deputy Leader of the Government and Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. Given that it was revealed that the Minister and her department paid consultancy firm Deloitte $9.1 million to create business cases for new schools and upgrades, what is the Minister's response to community concerns that the Government is paying exorbitant prices to outsource work that should be done by her department? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:40): I thank the honourable member for her question. The department has internal controls and procedures in place for the approval and reporting of consultants. All requests to engage an organisation that provides consultancy and other professional services must be submitted to the department's procurement unit for assessment and data capture prior to approval being sought. In addition to financial delegation approval, when an engagement is considered a consultancy, the secretary must approve all consultancy engagements over $100,000. Consultancy expenditure is disclosed each year in the department's annual report. Procurement Board Direction PBD-2019-01-Engagement of professional service suppliers details the following definitions of a consultant: A consultant is defined as a person or organisation engaged under contract on a temporary basis to provide recommendations or professional advice to assist decision-making by management. Generally it is the advisory nature of the work that differentiates a consultant from other contractors. Services provided under the NSW Government Legal Services Panel are excluded from the definition of a consultant … This definition has been applied to the department's reporting of consultancy engagements. The member has asked why the department has engaged consultants in this instance in relation to business cases in School Infrastructure. There are times when the department needs to procure specific subject matter expertise or independent advice to assist with decision-making and/or improving outcomes. Consultants are only engaged to deliver outcomes that the department is unable to deliver due to capability, credibility or the need for independent advice. The department may engage consultants for a range of reasons and expects that the professional expertise of its own employees will be used in preference to engaging external service providers. It is only engaged when the required professional expertise is not available internally or cannot be provided in an alternative, cost-effective manner. The department's approval process for consultancy complies with the procurement policy framework, which includes the Procurement Board direction in relation to the engagement of consultants. The member has asked specifically about Deloitte and the work that it does with School Infrastructure NSW. School Infrastructure is a relatively new organisation. I think it has been in place since 2018. We are building up the capability of School Infrastructure to do that work. I believe that this issue may also have been addressed at budget estimates hearings. I am happy to take the specifics of that contract on notice and provide an answer to the member. As I said, my understanding is that it is being engaged as we build the capability and capacity within School Infrastructure to continue to do that work. We have a record infrastructure program underway: 200 new and upgraded schools; $7 billion committed. It is important that is kept in perspective when Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5196

we look at this issue. I am happy to provide on notice to the member more specifics about that engagement and the reasons behind it. The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (16:43): I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Will she elucidate her answer about the building capability and building the capacity within School Infrastructure? Will she rule out using consultants in future years for business cases for new school upgrades? Will that capacity be within School Infrastructure NSW? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:43): I think I answered that in my original answer. As I said, the consultants were engaged because Education had never delivered an infrastructure program of this scale. It is important to put that on the record regarding the number of schools we are building and the upgrades being undertaken. School Infrastructure is a standalone entity which the Government created to support our massive school infrastructure build. The contract is in place to help build up the capacity within our School Infrastructure workforce The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (16:44): I ask a second supplementary question. The Minister spoke about consultants being brought in only when the department does not have the necessary skills or expertise. Will the Minister elucidate what specific skills and expertise the department does not have when it comes to building schools? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:44): Again, I think I answered that in the first two answers I gave about the scale of the building program we are undertaking—School Infrastructure being a new entity set up by the Government in order to take this on. I am happy any day of the week to talk about what we are doing in School Infrastructure. There are 200 new and upgraded schools, the biggest investment in education infrastructure since Federation. The community expects us to do that well. I am proud of what we are doing in this space. NAIDOC WEEK LOCAL GRANTS The Hon. TREVOR KHAN (16:45): My question is addressed to the Aboriginal Affairs Minister. Will the Minister update the House on this year's NAIDOC Week grants? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:45): Most certainly. For the benefit of those members of the House who are not aware, NAIDOC Week began as NADOC Week. Its origins can be traced back to the formation of the National Aborigines Day Observance Committee in the early 1950s. The very first NADOC Day was designated the second Sunday in July and the first one held as a day of remembrance for Aboriginal people and their heritage was in July 1956. Subsequently it has widened into a week of celebrations and in 1991 it became NAIDOC Week when Torres Strait Islanders were included in the title. On 15 February 2021 I was pleased to announce the opening of the 2021 NAIDOC grants program. The week is a significant opportunity for all Australians to come together to acknowledge and celebrate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' history, culture and achievements, and the grants program is available to facilitate that. This year NAIDOC Week will be held from 4 July to 11 July. The theme is "Heal Country!". NAIDOC Week 2021 invites all Australians to embrace First Nations cultural knowledge and understanding of country as part of Australia's national heritage. For more than 10 years the New South Wales Government has provided small grants to organisations across New South Wales to hold events in their local community. Once again this year I encourage eligible organisations to apply for these grants. They are of between $500 to $3,000 and are available to eligible organisations for activities and events during NAIDOC Week. Further information on the grants can be obtained from the Aboriginal Affairs NSW website. Total grant funding made available for 2021 NAIDOC Week this year will be $260,000. In 2020 the Government funded 87 projects celebrating NAIDOC Week, totalling $140,000. While some of the larger events that traditionally run during NAIDOC Week were unable to happen last year, I was delighted to give support for the smaller scale, COVID-safe events that were held throughout the State. Projects included language events, both face-to-face and online, dance and cultural workshops, weaving, community art projects, and of course get-togethers such as barbecues. This year we can look forward to more celebration of Aboriginal people's cultures during NAIDOC Week. I thank the Hon. Trevor Khan for his question. DOG BREEDING The Hon. EMMA HURST (16:48): My question is directed to the Deputy Leader of the Government, representing the Minister for Local Government. In 2016 Victoria amended its Domestic Animals Act to increase protections for breeding dogs, including placing a cap on the number of fertile female dogs and increasing oversight and enforcement of breeders through local councils. The equivalent Act in New South Wales is the Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5197

Companion Animals Act, which is under the control of the Minister for Local Government. Does the Minister support similar protection for dogs being enacted under the New South Wales Companion Animals Act—and if not, why not? The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts) (16:49): I represent the Minister for Local Government, so I am very happy to provide the honourable member with an answer. The New South Wales Government is committed to safeguarding animal welfare and providing the strongest possible regulatory framework to promote responsible animal ownership and care. While the Companion Animals Act 1998 contains certain provisions relating to the responsible care and management of companion animals, the primary Act in New South Wales covering animal welfare matters and for protecting the safety and welfare of animals is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 [POCTAA] and it is supported by the underlying regulations, standards and codes. The Minister for Local Government jointly shares responsibility for the POCTAA with the Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales in the other place. The Department of Planning Industry and Environment [DPIE] is the lead agency responsible for ensuring the policy and legislative frameworks in the State support good animal welfare outcomes. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [RSPCA] New South Wales, the Animal Welfare League New South Wales and the NSW Police Force are the organisations responsible for enforcing POCTAA. Everyone breeding dogs and cats in New South Wales must comply with POCTAA and the regulation, and anyone in the business of breeding dogs and cats for fee or reward must comply with the Animal Welfare Code of Practice in relation to breeding dogs and cats to protect the welfare of the animals in their care. The breeding code came into force in 2009 and was developed in consultation with Dogs NSW, Australian National Cats Inc., RSPCA NSW, the Animal Welfare League NSW and other people and organisations involved in the industry. It is also endorsed by the NSW Animal Welfare Advisory Council. The Government has vowed to crack down on the operators of illegal puppy farms and launched a statewide RSPCA task force in October 2020 to target unscrupulous breeders. Additional funding has been provided to the RSPCA NSW Puppy Factory Taskforce, a specialised arm of the organisation's inspectorate dedicated to investigating inadequate conditions and standards at dog-breeding facilities. We are taking a zero tolerance approach to these factory-like operations, which do not comply with our animal welfare laws. In May 2015 the Government established the Joint Select Committee on Companion Animal Breeding Practices in NSW to inquire and report. The Government provided a response to the report's recommendations on 26 February 2016. The inquiry found that there was no evidence that the number of animals kept by breeders is in itself a factor that determines welfare outcomes of breeding animals. There has been a range of measures introduced to improve animal welfare and to promote responsible pet breeding and ownership since then. These measures will provide for better whole-of-life tracking of these animals, from their breeders to their owners throughout their life. [Extension of time] As part of a suite of work under the NSW Animal Welfare Action Plan, the Government is committed to reviewing and modernising New South Wales animal welfare laws with the intention to introduce new legislation in 2021. That legislation is now before the Chamber. The review includes the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986, the Animal Research Act 1985 and the underlying regulations, standards and codes. Public consultation closed on the issues paper on 21 June 2020 and over 1,000 submissions were received. They have been analysed and relevant issues have been addressed in the new animal welfare laws. There will be further opportunity for the community to have their say on the reform through future public consultation processes. Prospective pet owners are encouraged to visit a council pound, an RSPCA shelter or one of the many approved rehoming organisations across the State. [Time expired.] YANCO AGRICULTURAL HIGH SCHOOL The Hon. (16:53): I direct my question to the Deputy Leader of the Government, the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. Given that students at Yanco Agricultural High School will be forced to spend what local media is reporting as "another freezing winter in run-down demountable dorms" and despite her July 2020 commitment to build new female dormitory facilities at the school, where is the business case and funding for the upgrade? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:54): I thank the Hon. Mick Veitch for his question relating to our commitment to upgrade the dormitories at Yanco Agricultural High School. It is a very important school, being one of three agricultural boarding schools in the State, as the member would be very well aware. I visited the school with the Hon. Wes Fang last year, I think, to look at the dormitories following concerns being raised with me, particularly by the student body. We visited the school, together with the member for Murray and some very senior people from the Department of Education. It Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5198

was very clear to me that those dormitories need to be updated and following that meeting I said, "We need to have a look at what we can do here." The Government announced an upgrade of those dormitories, which is an important project for the reasons I have outlined. I commend and congratulate that school community, particularly the school leadership, the prefect body, for bringing this matter to my attention. As to where the project is up to, the planning phase has commenced to investigate the feasibility, cost and benefits of an upgrade to the boarding facilities at Yanco Agricultural High School. Work is underway to review options for the current facilities and the future needs of boarders. That planning process is certainly well underway. Last week one of our senior department staff met with the school leadership at the school—they were heading out to do that, after I ran into them in Wagga Wagga on Tuesday—to ensure we keep the school community updated as best we can. Obviously, in the early stage of the project most of the engagement with the school community is with the principal talking through the school's needs. We need to conduct a site investigation, make a master plan, so that the business case can be prepared and submitted to Treasury. That is what we do with all our builds. That is the process we go through to get these projects up and running. Once the business case has been approved, there will be an opportunity for workshops and more feedback from the school and prefect body to ensure that what we are planning and what we will deliver suits the needs that those students expressed to me, particularly at the start of the process. I am pleased that we will deliver this project for those students. Having seen the facilities, I know this upgrade is very much needed and that is why work is progressing on planning for this project. I look forward to continuing to update the House and the community as the project progresses. The Hon. MICK VEITCH (16:56): I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister please elucidate that part of her answer where she referred to the planning phase? When will the planning phase be completed? When will the funding be made available? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:56): I thank the Hon. Mick Veitch for his question. I will seek advice from School Infrastructure in relation to the time lines. As I said, I know that that engagement and the planning process are well underway. Last week senior department staff visited the school to talk to the school community. I am happy to get further specifics on notice and come back to the member. REGIONAL EDUCATION The Hon. WES FANG (16:57): I address my question to the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning. Will the Minister please update the House on her trip last week to Wagga Wagga, Hay and Orange? The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning) (16:57): I thank the Hon. Wes Fang for his question and for providing me with an opportunity to talk about all the great things happening in education in regional New South Wales. I was excited to visit Wagga Wagga last week, together with the Hon. Wes Fang. We also headed out to Hay for the Isolated Children's Parents' Association conference and then to Orange and Molong with the Hon. Sam Farraway. All up, we travelled about 1,500 kilometres in three days. It was a fantastic opportunity to see some of the great things that are happening in our regional schools. In Wagga Wagga we visited the brand-new Estella Public School, opened and delivered by our Government on day one, term 1 this year. It was great to meet the principal, Tracy Delaney, who gave us a tour of the new school and introduced us to the fantastic staff and students, who clearly are loving their new facilities. It did not feel that long ago that the Hon. Wes Fang and I were there in hard hats looking at the construction. Now the whole school has been built. The Hon. Walt Secord: I saw the photo. The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: It was a great photo. He takes a selfie like no-one else. It was great to see the school up and running and I congratulate that community. We then had a meeting with some local representatives and the local member, Dr Joe McGirr, about our behaviour strategy, getting feedback from a number of interested representatives, including our P&Cs, police, the Aboriginal community and youth liaison officers from a number of organisations. We then headed to Ashmont Public School, which has received a brand-new roof under our regional roofs program. We also visited Red Hill Public School, which will be getting a project through our Regional Renewal Program to build a new, inclusive playground for the students. They are so excited about that. It was great to hear from the school leaders—Ella, Lei-Lani, Harold and Jaylen—who told me all about what they want for the new playground. Monkey bars are the top requirement! That afternoon I also met with some of the assistant principals and head teachers from schools around Wagga to talk about a range of education matters. Again, it was really great to get that grassroots feedback. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5199

Then it was on to Hay for the meeting of the ICPA. I give a big shout-out to its president, Claire Butler, and the ICPA representatives, who do an amazing job representing rural and remote education. They are passionate advocates for regional education. "Thrive in isolation" was this year's theme and it is a very apt one. They are good people and very valued by all members of the House. We then headed to Hay War Memorial High School—the only high school in the Southern Hemisphere with a memorial museum on site. It was a great opportunity to learn about what they are doing there. I went down to the ag plot to check out some of their sheep and got some honey that the students had produced, which my daughters tell me is excellent on Weet-Bix—I look forward to trying that myself. We also visited Hay Public School, where I was shown their kitchen garden and cooking programs. The last step was a visit to Orange which was all about the next round of our Regional Renewal Program. In the Orange electorate alone some 23 schools will be sharing over $1.4 million to roll out a number of capital works projects. We said hello to Orange Public School and saw its plans for a dry creek bed and a water bore. Then it was off to Orange High School. It has an amazing coffee cart, The Educated Roast, which is open to the public, and members should check it out when they head to Orange. We then went to Molong Central School, where we did a bit of chemistry. It was a great visit and I cannot wait to head back. [Time expired.] The Hon. DON HARWIN: The time for questions has expired. If members have further questions I suggest they place them on notice. Supplementary Questions for Written Answers DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CONSULTANTS The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (17:01): My supplementary question for written answer relates to the question I asked the education Minister earlier today. Would the Minister be able to provide a list of the new schools and upgrades that the $9.1 million to the consultancy firm Deloitte paid for? Questions Without Notice: Take Note TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: I move: That the House take note of answers to questions. MURWILLUMBAH SCHOOL CLOSURES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CONSULTANTS The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (17:02): In question time today the education Minister was asked a series of questions about schools in New South Wales. The first of those was around the Government's very controversial decision to close four schools and create a super school in Murwillumbah. This was announced by the Minister, along with one of her colleagues, who then scampered away as the community was left in shock at this momentous decision. We have asked many questions in this House about this decision to create a super school, putting kids as young as kindergarten age on the same site as year 12 students in Murwillumbah. There was no consultation with the community before this decision was made, and when we have asked the Minister questions in this House about the consultation process she has talked about the consultation after the decision was made: "What is it going to look like? What are we going to have? What services are going to be provided?" The crucial question was the consultation that happened with the community before the decision was made. Why was this momentous decision made to put so many students on a single site? Is there academic research? Is there a reason behind this? Or, as we uncovered in documents produced to this House under a Standing Order 52 call for papers, is it because the upgrades that were promised to address flooding at Murwillumbah East Public School were just too expensive to be provided? Almost 5,000 locals have signed local member Janelle Saffin's petition, and I commend her for her excellent advocacy on behalf of her community. Those locals have said they want the Minister to front up and explain why the Government has taken this momentous decision. They want to know why this decision has been made by the Minister. It was great to hear her admit in question time today that she would go and meet with the community. The question is: When? When will she go and meet with the community? When will she go and meet with these parents? When will she go and explain why such a momentous decision was taken and on what basis? We also asked about consultants being given $9.1 million to create business cases because of the creation of School Infrastructure NSW. This is the creation of an agency that the Minister has trumpeted in this House as a great move forward. Now we find out what that move forward is: It is actually about contracting out services that used to be done by this Government. The idea that the New South Wales Government does not have the Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5200

capacity, or that it is a new idea about how to build schools or upgrade schools, and that instead it needs to give millions of dollars to consultants instead of being able to do that in-house is absolutely ridiculous. [Time expired.] TALLAWARRA POWER STATION The Hon. MARK LATHAM (17:05): I take note of the answer by senior Minister Tudehope on the Tallawarra B gas plant expansion. It seems incredible that inside this Government the energy Minister would be saying that gas is not commercially viable in New South Wales. What is commercially viable? The truth is that the Minister's Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap is already falling apart. Just last month the Australian Energy Market Operator [AEMO] noted that the Minister's scenario for 100 per cent renewable also has multiple early coal-fired generator retirements projected in the next decade. The Minister's plan, as was outlined in my contribution to the debate on the bill, is bringing forward the closure of the coal-fired power generators. The Minister wants to go to 100 per cent renewable under this so-called road map using wind farms and solar farms, but what do we do when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing? The problem with the pumped hydro around New South Wales comes down to commercial viability. We know that Origin Energy at Shoalhaven, with much of the infrastructure already laid out, said it was not commercially viable to go ahead with that. Other than Snowy 2.0, the Minister has drawn a blank. Battery storage technology on a mass scale is largely unproven. The truth is that to keep the lights on in New South Wales we need gas peaking plants. If Tallawarra does not go ahead then what have we got? It seems incredible that the Minister would not be supporting the expansion of gas peaking so that we can turn them on quickly when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not out—when we have not got wind and solar power. It seems incredible that Minister Kean would not be supporting Tallawarra going ahead to provide the energy security that we need in New South Wales. The fact that the small business Minister was not able to back in the scheme immediately in this House just shows that the Government has no commitment to energy security, more affordable prices and the interests of small business. Would members not think the Minister would be saying that, yes, gas is commercially viable and that gas peaking is essential for energy security and keeping all those small businesses alive and productive in New South Wales? The Minister has let down his small business constituency. Where are these economic Ministers? I know they are embarrassed that they were left out of the road map development completely. At budget estimates Treasury representatives said they did not get to see the modelling. They were not in on the ground level. They were not part of the oversight for the biggest economic reform in New South Wales for a generation. These Ministers have been sidelined time after time after time. They are completely impotent. Both the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Small Business are impotent in standing up for their constituency to get gas moving and to get Tallawarra moving to ensure we have energy security in New South Wales. NSW GOVERNMENT GRADUATE PROGRAM The Hon. LOU AMATO (17:08): I take note of answers by the Hon. Don Harwin. The Graduate Program was initiated by this Government as a way to attract and retain talented graduates and induct them into the New South Wales public service. The NSW Government Graduate Program starts in February each year and goes for 18 months. During that time, graduates complete three six-month placements in different roles in government across New South Wales. The program looks for people with a range of skills and backgrounds and accepts applications from people with all university degrees. Under the program graduates earn a competitive salary from day one and learn to grow, with mentoring and networking opportunities. The program offers graduates to complete further study while on the job. Graduates who successfully complete the program are offered permanent, ongoing employment in the public sector. The 18-month program has been going for a few years now and its popularity and success are underlined by the fact it won the Australian Financial Review's 2021 Graduate Program of the Year. Since its beginnings, the New South Wales Government has placed over 800 graduates; I repeat, 800 graduates. Their placement brings their youth, innovative ways of thinking and new perspectives to the New South Wales public sector. Placement with the Graduate Program often results in fast-moving career trajectories, with graduates often being promoted within a year of completing the program. I commend the Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts, the Hon. Don Harwin and the New South Wales Government for the success of the New South Wales Graduate Program. The PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to standing orders, debate is interrupted to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to respond. TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN (17:10): I take this opportunity to respond to a number of issues raised today. The first is about, of course, the Murwillumbah schools. The Hon. Courtney Houssos referred to it as a super school, but that is fundamentally wrong. It is not a super school. That is a lie that is being spread in the Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5201

community. In fact there will be two schools: an entirely separate and different primary school and a high school. The Hon. Courtney Houssos also talked about a conspiracy that the new school could be funded because of the cost of repairs to the old schools that currently exist. The new school will cost $100 million. That would equate to an extraordinary amount of repairs. Clearly, it is an insane and ridiculous argument and it is not the case. Much like the Ballina Coast High School, this will be an incredible, cutting-edge, leading-the-nation school, with over $100 million being spent on it. The Hon. Courtney Houssos also raised the issue of consultation and asked whether the Minister will visit Murwillumbah. The Minister gave a very clear commitment not only to consult but also to revisit the community again and again. That is because this Minister listens and engages and is genuinely concerned and compassionate about the lives of every student in regional New South Wales. This project is about making a world-class school in a regional area. The fact that the Labor Party opposes that, frankly, shows where their priorities are—and they are not with regional New South Wales. The Minister for Finance and Small Business responded to questions on economic and business confidence. He referred to the fact that confidence is growing, and why would it not? Obviously, with the recent easing of border restrictions, the first COVID-19 vaccinations being distributed and delivered, restrictions being gradually lifted, and restarting the economy, it is no surprise that confidence in the New South Wales economy has been boosted. We know that because more than 80 per cent of the jobs lost during the peak of the pandemic have returned. Every single step the Government takes towards reopening the economy improves people's lives and helps business, which feeds the bottom line. On top of that, the forecasted budget deficit has been revised downwards by $2.7 billion, from $16 billion to $13.3 billion. We know that conditions are challenging. The Government is not hubristic about this. Any improvements in the budget will continue to allow us to invest in our record $107 billion infrastructure project, which is good for jobs, good for the economy and good for people's livelihoods. The final comment I make is about the NSW Women of the Year Awards. I think that every single member of this Chamber would agree with me that Dr Kerry Chant is an extraordinary and appropriate selection to be named not only the New South Wales Premier's Woman of the Year but also the New South Wales Woman of Excellence. We thank her, her entire team and everyone who has worked at the front line and say that it is because of them that we have got through this pandemic so well. The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Motion agreed to. Deferred Answers COVID-19 AND PRESCHOOLS In reply to the Hon. PENNY SHARPE (16 February 2021). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: The New South Wales Government is committed to ensuring that all children in New South Wales make a strong start in life and learning and make a successful transition to school. Research shows that participation for 15 hours per week, or 600 hours per year, in a quality early childhood education program in the year before school provides enduring benefits to children well beyond primary school. The evidence consistently suggests that a successful transition to school is linked to positive school outcomes in both academic achievement and social skills, and positive long-term outcomes. The Department of Education provides a number of Transition to School initiatives to support children as they move from early childhood education to primary school. Transition to School information and resources are available on the department's website. These include Transition to School videos showcasing best practice transition to school programs for services, parents and carers; and the Transition to School Statement, which communicates a child's prior-to-school learning and development to their new school, to support continuity of learning. A Transition to School resource pack, including a guide for educators and a storybook has been, was distributed in 2020 to 4,063 long day care services and community preschools and 124 family day care services. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, schools needed to review their usual Orientation and Transition programs to meet the New South Wales public health orders that were in place. Schools were provided with comprehensive advice for term 4, 2020 and term 1, 2021 to assist them in planning orientation and transition programs for kindergarten students and their families that complied with current New South Wales health advice. This included the opportunity for onsite visits alongside the use of physical resources and technology to ensure students and parents were able to make a positive connection with their school and teachers. Schools were able to make decisions on how best to implement orientation and transition programs based on the advice that had been provide to them. The department does not collect specific information on kindergarten orientation and transition programs run by schools therefore data on the number of children who missed or experienced an altered transition to school in 2020 is not centrally available. The New South Wales Government has taken a range of steps to ensure a strong start to school for the 2021 kindergarten cohort, including providing resources to support remote orientation and opportunities for children and families to build familiarity with the Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5202

school and teachers. Resources included social stories, stories form schools adopting innovative approaches, podcast with renowned academics Dockett and Perry, professional learning around engaging remotely, supporting families with children with a disability and strategies to support a play-based approach in the kindergarten classroom in 2021 . All students commencing kindergarten in New South Wales public schools and some Catholic and Independent schools participate in the Best Start Assessment. The Best Start Assessment allows teachers to gain an understanding of that student's literacy and numeracy knowledge. This includes a student's phonemic knowledge. The results help the teacher to understand what each student knows already and to plan teaching accordingly. All teachers of kindergarten have access to syllabus support, resources and professional learning to assist them in the teaching of phonics. Through the Start Strong program, the Government has made historic increases in funding provided per child in community preschools across New South Wales. Start Strong requires services to reduce fees for families. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, average daily fees were 20 per cent lower than before the introduction of Start Strong. In April 2020 the New South Wales Government announced $51 million of funding for the COVID19 free preschool funding program to provide additional temporary funding for community and mobile preschools in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This program was in place for terms 2, 3 and 4 in 2020. The 2020-21 Budget includes funding for the extension of the COVID-19 free preschool funding program with up to $120 million for 2021 available to approximately 700 State-funded community preschools and 38 mobile services. The program provides at least 15 hours of fee-free preschool per week for families. ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE ROADMAP In reply to the Hon. MARK LATHAM (16 February 2021). The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts)—The Minister provided the following response: Please refer to the minister for Energy and Environment's answer to the same question, provided to the Legislative Council on 17 February 2021, as a written response to a supplementary question. INTENSIVE SUPPORT TEACHERS In reply to the Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (16 February 2021). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: The Department of Education's COVID Intensive Learning Support team provides guidelines and information to support principals recruit and employ tutors. The guidelines refer to three classifications of staff that may deliver small group tuition: teachers, educational paraprofessionals and educators (non-teachers). There are no recruitment guidelines to principals that give greater preference to the recruitment of qualified teachers compared to the other classifications of staff who can be employed by schools to deliver small group tuition. Preliminary payroll data for the COVID Intensive Learning Support Program indicates that 85 per cent of the additional educators are qualified teachers. ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE ROADMAP In reply to the Hon. MARK PEARSON (16 February 2021). The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts)—The Minister provided the following response: The Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap is a comprehensive framework to modernise the New South Wales electricity system into one that is cheaper, cleaner and more reliable. Under the Electricity Infrastructure Investment Act 2020 there are different pathways for generation and storage technologies to compete to provide the services they are best suited for. Enabling a mix of technologies will improve the affordability and reliability of electricity supply. Any biomass power stations generating electricity from the burning of wood cleared from native forests would need to meet the same eligibility and merit assessment criteria as other generation infrastructure. INDIGENOUS ARTEFACTS In reply to the Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (16 February 2021). The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts)—The Minister provided the following response: I am advised that the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment [DPIE], as the lead for Aboriginal cultural heritage compliance and enforcement actions, investigated the matter at Wagga Wagga Solar Farm and considered the case in accordance with the DPIE Prosecution Guidelines. The penalty amount associated with the Penalty Infringement Notice issued for breaching the Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit is set out in the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5203

The New South Wales Government is undertaking a programme of legislative reform which includes working with the peak Aboriginal Stakeholder groups on a review of the regulatory and compliance processes for the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage in New South Wales. RENEWABLE ENERGY ZONES In reply to the Hon. ROD ROBERTS (16 February 2021). The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts)—The Minister provided the following response: 1. Section 23 of the Electricity Infrastructure Investment Act 2020 legislates that the minister will declare the Illawarra and Hunter-Central Coast Renewable Energy Zones. 2. The department is undertaking feasibility and planning work to determine the best approach to delivering all News South Wales Renewable Energy Zones. ROCK FISHING SAFETY In reply to the Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (17 February 2021). The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR (Minister for Mental Health, Regional Youth and Women)—The Minister provided the following response: In 2016 the New South Wales Government enacted the Rock Fishing Safety Act 2016 in response to recommendations from the Deputy State Coroner in 2015 regarding the safety of rock fishers. Administrative responsibility for the Act currently rests with the minister for Local Government and the minister for Police and Emergency Services. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries [NSW DPI] has provided educational campaign material to the Office of Local Government and the Office of Emergency Management. Notwithstanding these administrative arrangements, the department has continued to promote rock fishing safety. NSW DPI Fisheries has previously run rock fishing safety workshops in partnership with other organisations and more workshops are planned for 2021. The department also continues to promote fishing safety in its Saltwater Fishing Guide and at community events attended by NSW DPI education officers and Fishcare Volunteers. Rock fishing safety brochures, which include information for people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities, are also mailed to licence holders across the State when they receive their plastic recreational fishing licences. Some of these activities have been partly funded using funds from the Recreational Fishing Trust. Additionally, Trust funding has been previously provided to the angel rings program (run by the Australian Sport Fishing Association - NSW Branch) and the Recreational Fishing Alliance rock fishing safety officer program, as well as various other rock fishing related projects. To date, all fine revenue from penalty notices issued by NSW DPI Fisheries Officers under the Rock Fishing Safety Act 2016 has been transferred by the Department to the Recreational Fishing (Saltwater) Trust, as stipulated by the Act. This totals $3,300 as of 19 February 2021. FAMILY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE In reply to Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (17 February 2021). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: I am advised: The New South Wales Government response to Recommendation 34 of the NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team [DVDRT] Report 2017-2019 is available at: https:/www.coroners.nsw.gov.au/coroners-court/resources/domestic-violence-deathreview.html MOLLYMOOK SCHOOL SITE In reply to Mr JUSTIN FIELD (17 February 2021). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: The New South Wales Government has decided to consult with the community regarding proposed uses for this site and will not proceed to auction of the land at this stage. The consultation with the community will consider community use of the land and its ecological value. The site was declared surplus to the Department of Education's requirements in September 2020, and approved for sale in the current financial year. The department's long term projections are informed by census data and dwelling and population forecasts provided by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment [DPIE] in conjunction with local councils. DPIE prepares and releases these population projections to New South Wales Government agencies and other organisations including councils to ensure a consistent view of the future New South Wales population. This enables New South Wales Government agencies to work with an agreed set of projections for proposals, business plans and strategies The department's New South Wales student population projections are based on these New South Wales State Common Planning Assumptions. The student population projections are regularly updated. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5204

SCHOFIELDS PUBLIC SCHOOL In reply to the Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (18 February 2021). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: As advised at the end of question time, the number of demountables currently at Schofields Public School is 20, not 30 as the member suggested. This is evidence of the Government's investment in new and upgraded schools in this growing area of Sydney. KANGAROO PLAN OF MANAGEMENT In reply to the Hon. MARK PEARSON (18 February 2021). The Hon. DON HARWIN (Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Public Service and Employee Relations, Aboriginal Affairs, and the Arts)—The Minister provided the following response: The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment regulates the commercial harvest of kangaroos in New South Wales. Regional compliance officers from the department conduct field inspections of registered chiller premises and processing works across all commercial kangaroo management zones. Compliance checks of licensee data is also used to ensure the harvest is both ecologically sustainable and humane. Information about inspections of chiller premises and processing works, and compliance actions between 2017 and 2019 are outlined in the NSW Commercial Kangaroo Management Plan annual reports available at www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and- plants/wildlifemanagement/kangaroo-management/kangaroo-population-monitoring-andreporting/reports-and-research. Data for 2020 will be reported in the upcoming 2020 annual report. Written Answers to Supplementary Questions ILLAWARRA SHOALHAVEN ECONOMY In reply to the Hon. MARK LATHAM (18 February 2021). The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE (Minister for Finance and Small Business)—The Minister provided the following response: The New South Wales Government makes policy announcements after due consideration and in a timely manner. SCHOFIELDS PUBLIC SCHOOL In reply to the Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS (18 February 2021). The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning)—The Minister provided the following response: Harbord Public School 1 Point Clare Public School 0 Bellevue Hill Public School 0 Coolah Central School 1 Killara Public School 1 Cherrybrook Technology High School 18 St Clair High School 0 Bardia Public School 0 Bolwarra Public School 0 Farrer Memorial Agricultural High School 0 Hunter School of Performing Arts 0 Homebush West Public School 0 Manly Vale Public School 0 Marie Bashir Public School 0 Rainbow Street Public School 0 Randwick Public School 0 Artarmon Public School 0 Hunter Sports High School 0 Richmond High School 0 Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5205

Hurlstone Agricultural High School upgrade 1 Ingleburn High School 4 Claremont Meadows Public School 3 Penrith Public School 0 Pottsville Beach Public School 0 Nulkaba Public School 0 Auburn North Public School 0 Merrylands Public School 6 Denistone East Public School 1 Belmont High School 0 Marsden Road Public School 0 Old Bar Public School 0 Rosehill Public School 1 Cecil Hills Public School 0 Oran Park Public School 15 Quakers Hill East Public School 0 Coffs Harbour Public School 0 Queanbeyan East Public School 1 Rutherford Public School 0 Terrigal Public School 2 Prestons Public School 0 Ashbury Public School 0 Newcastle East Public School 0 Riverbank Public School 44 Willoughby Girls High School 0 Wauchope Public School 1 William Stimson Public School 0 Yagoona Public School 2 Byron Bay Public School 0 Gwynneville Public School 0 Carlingford Public School 3 Epping Public School 10 Excelsior Public School 0 Greenwich Public School 0 North Rocks Public School 0 Killara High School 3 Lidcombe Public School 6 Wangi Public School 0 Pendle Hill Public School 0 Riverstone High School 2 Hurstville Public School 13 Penshurst West Public School 0 Yass High School 8 Karabar High School 4 Queanbeyan High School 0 Wamberal Public School 0 Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5206

Willoughby Public School 0 Callaghan College Jesmond Campus 0 Ku-ring-gai High School 0 Speers Point Public School 0 Canley Vale High School 12 Killarney Heights Public School 0 Schofields Public School 20 West Ryde Public School 0 Westfields Sports High School 0 Wollongong Public School 0 James Fallon High School 0 Banksia Road Public School 15 St Ives North Public School 0 Tamworth Public School 2 Waitara Public School 1 Brookvale Public School 2 Ajuga School 0 Glenfield Park School 1 Campbell House School 0 Bills COVID-19 LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (STRONGER COMMUNITIES AND HEALTH) BILL 2021 First Reading Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Damien Tudehope, on behalf of the Hon. Sarah Mitchell. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: 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. Motion agreed to. The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I move: That the second reading of the bill stand as an order of the day for a later hour.

Motion agreed to. Committees PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 2 - HEALTH Government Response: Health Impacts of Exposure to Poor Levels of Air Quality Resulting from Bushfires and Drought The Hon. DAMIEN TUDEHOPE: I table the Government response to report No. 54 of Portfolio Committee No. 2 - Health entitled Health impacts of exposure to poor levels of air quality resulting from bushfires and drought, tabled 16 September 2020. I move: That the report be printed. Motion agreed to. The Hon. : I move: That the House take note of the Government response. Debate adjourned. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5207

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE Government Response: 2018 Review of the Workers Compensation Scheme Debate resumed from 16 February 2021. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Courtney Houssos): The question is that the House take note of the Government response. Motion agreed to. STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE Government Response: 2018 Review of the Compulsory Third Party Insurance Scheme Debate resumed from 15 October 2019. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Courtney Houssos): The question is that the House take note of the Government response. Motion agreed to. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 5 - LEGAL AFFAIRS Report: Road Transport Amendment (Mobile Phone Detection) Bill 2019 Debate resumed from 16 February 2021. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Courtney Houssos): The question is that the House take note of the report. Motion agreed to. Business of the House POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: I move: That committee reports and Government responses order of the day No. 4 be postponed until the next sitting day. Motion agreed to. Committees PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 4 - INDUSTRY Report: Implementation of the Recommendations of the Chief Scientist's Independent Review of Coal Seam Gas Activities in NSW Debate resumed from 16 February 2021. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Courtney Houssos): The question is that the House take note of the report. Motion agreed to. PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 2 - HEALTH Report: Operation and Management of the Northern Beaches Hospital Debate resumed from 13 October 2020. The Hon. GREG DONNELLY (17:19): This item has been on the list now for a significant period. I understand the Hon. Walt Secord was going to make a contribution to the take note debate on this report. I provided him with a copy of my report and the Government response but he is not present in the Chamber. I was going to respond and basically rule the debate finished but— The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Pretend you are Walt. The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I could pretend I am Walt. Here comes the Hon. Walt Secord now. I note that he was a very valued Opposition member on the committee and I welcome him to the rostrum. The Hon. WALT SECORD (17:20): I speak to Portfolio Committee No. 2's report entitled Operation and management of the Northern Beaches Hospital. I pay tribute to the portfolio committee's chair, the Hon. Greg Donnelly, for his tireless work in this area and to the shadow Minister for Health, Ryan Park, for his diligence in Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5208

supporting our work in the inquiry. I also pay tribute to the deputy chair, Emma Hurst of the , for her diligence. This was quite an extensive inquiry. In fact, it began when I was shadow health Minister and I still remember working closely with the Hon. Greg Donnelly and the residents in the northern beaches who are very concerned about the transition and the creation of a public-private partnership—a private hospital in the northern beaches. Many people in this Chamber would remember the horrific stories that came out of Port Macquarie during the Greiner Government. Many, in fact, feared that there would be a repeat of a two-tier health system and a preference for private patients over public patients. Sadly, the NSW Nurses and Midwives' Association and the Health Services Union were correct in their fears. It was an extensive inquiry. It showed the value of the upper House committee system and how it could interrogate, call witnesses and get to the bottom of community concerns. The inquiry was established on 6 June 2019. There were three hearings and 236 extensive submissions. The report was tabled in February 2020 and there were many concerns about the operation of the hospital. There were 23 recommendations and I am pleased that many of them are supported by the Government; that is welcome. There are a few recommendations where it simply used the weasel word of "noted". I understand the Government has rejected community concerns about the Mona Vale Hospital and the work involving asbestos removal and the public retention of that asset for future use. There were concerns about the operation of the hospital. I remember that there was one very reassuring development out of the hospital and that was the establishment of a GP clinic near the emergency department. That provided a valuable framework and it actually took pressure off the emergency department. I remember when I was in Canberra some time ago there was a push to relocate GP clinics to emergency departments to get people out of the emergency department who were not urgent and who did not have access to bulk billing. That was one of the positive aspects of the Northern Beaches Hospital, so I encourage the Government to look at that. We hope that the Government continues to support the Northern Beaches Hospital, but I note that there were many stories at the very beginning. The hospital was opened too soon, it was opened before it was ready, and it was not properly resourced and properly supported. Nurses upon nurses talked about a lack of bandages. There were also industrial problems involving the lack of support for junior doctors. Labor had strong views on the private provision of health services in the area. It still holds those views and we hope that the Liberals and The Nationals have learnt their lesson from Port Macquarie and from the transition period of the Northern Beaches Hospital. I commend my colleague the Hon. Greg Donnelly for his diligence in this area. The Hon. GREG DONNELLY (17:25): In reply: I thank the Hon. Walt Secord for his kind words. It was very valuable to have him as a member on the committee given his detailed knowledge of matters health, as he referred to in terms of his responsibility as the shadow health Minister. I will not re-canvass all the matters that were covered when I first spoke in the take note debate on this report. The way that Portfolio Committee No. 2 – Health operates is that it does not produce a laundry list of recommendations, and I think we have a consensus around that and I think it has worked quite well. We try to identify key significant recommendations to really hone in on a discrete set of key matters that need to be addressed. That could be a long list and in this particular case, as the Hon. Walt Secord said, there were 23 recommendations. The Government responded to the recommendations on 27 August 2020. I note that 16 recommendations were supported, five were noted and the Government decided to not support two of them. On the issue of the future development of the Mona Vale site, development has taken place and continues to take place. I believe that will continue to exercise the minds and concerns of the northern part of the northern beaches—at the top end of the peninsula. That part of the peninsula is populated by a not insignificant number of our senior citizens and they have expressed, and continue to express, a desire to have a hospital facility that can provide far more than it currently does. For those who may be infirm or who lack ready access to public transport, the trip down to the Northern Beaches Hospital at Frenchs Forest can be quite a long trip. An important thing to note is that with the flooding of the Wakehurst Parkway, which happens on quite a regular basis, the ambulance trip from the top end of the northern beaches down to Frenchs Forest Northern Beaches Hospital site is quite long. It is important that the Government does more to enhance the services available to people at the Mona Vale site as they continue to develop it. We had a very clear position on the old Manly Hospital site. It is located on beautiful land and it must remain in public hands. Obviously there would be enormous temptation to flog it off to investors—to use the vernacular. That would be absolutely tragic. It is some of the most beautiful landscape you could find, with magnificent views of the ocean. Committee members were very clear, which we repeated, that land must remain in public hands and be set aside only for public use for either health or allied health facilities. Once again, I thank the committee secretariat, who worked tirelessly alongside Hansard staff. Quite frankly, if their work was not done to such a high standard, we would not be able to produce the quality reports that we do. I speak for all committee members when I thank the committee secretariat and Hansard staff for the Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5209

outstanding work they have done and continue to do to serve the committees of this House. I also thank my fellow committee members. We developed quite a collegial way of dealing with those inquiries despite the fact that they can sometimes be quite contested. This was not an inquiry without contest. As the Hon. Walt Secord said, it touched on the existential debate about whether the provision of health, particularly with respect to a hospital, should be run by the State—namely NSW Health—or whether there is room for the opening of a privatised facility. The very clear position that committee members took, which is reflected in one of the recommendations, is that those establishments should remain always in public hands and be run by the State. The reports that I have received with respect to the Northern Beaches Hospital at Frenchs Forest outline an improvement in some of the not-so-insignificant issues that were there at the opening of the hospital. That is to be expected given the length of time the hospital has been operating. It is pretty clear to me and some of my fellow committee members that the way in which the ship has been righted to see that hospital running to the standard to which it ought to be running is because of an ongoing, much closer and almost daily examination of what is being done at the hospital by the Northern Sydney Local Health District. The committee members pressed very strongly that it was not acceptable for a public company to effectively run this hospital as a profit-making entity, as might be the case with some other investment or piece of business. This was key State infrastructure and a significant public hospital that would serve the people of the northern beaches for decades to come. The standards that are expected at a State-run public hospital must be applied no less at the Northern Beaches Hospital. I credit the health Minister and the senior Health bureaucrats, who carefully listened to the evidence and the prosecution of the argument that I have just described. They took the point made in the report and mandated that the Northern Sydney Local Health District play a far more hands-on role in meeting key performance indicators and that it maintain the overall quality and standard of health care at the Northern Beaches Hospital. I commend the report to the House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Courtney Houssos): The question is that the House take note of the report. Motion agreed to. STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE Report: 2019 Review of the Dust Diseases Scheme—Silicosis in the Manufactured Stone Industry Debate resumed from 13 October 2020. The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (17:35): The COVID crisis hit when this committee was coming to the point of deliberating on its recommendations and it was an unfortunate situation for me. I had been quite engaged with this inquiry, but I had to self-isolate for a time and was not able to participate in the deliberative because at that point in time we had not adjusted the standing orders to allow members to participate remotely. It was quite a frustrating situation because I wanted to speak about some issues in the deliberative process. Foremost amongst those was the specific amendment to the report that the Labor members of the committee put forward that proposed that all sites where manufactured stone is being fabricated should be required to have health and safety representatives and committees in place. Unfortunately I was not there to prosecute that argument and the majority of the committee voted to not support the amendment, which was very disappointing. The amendment was important. This crisis has emerged primarily because of a lack of information in the workplace about the risks associated with occupational exposure to silica dust. In the absence of a more enduring structure of investigation by the regulator, this problem is likely to re-emerge as the attention that has been driven by the increase in silicosis cases starts to decline. We are going to get on top of this. In the past we have had silicosis, we got on top of it and then it effectively disappeared. But it has now re-emerged because of a lack of awareness in the community and the workforce of the occupational risks posed by silica dust. Health and safety representatives [HSRs] play a critical role in allowing workers to gain information and be made aware of the risks. They provide a structure for effective outreach by the regulator to maintain the continuing awareness of workers. One thing that came out of the inquiry is that of the many fabricators operating in the Sydney metro area, almost all of them had no HSRs in place. That is a major problem. Requiring HSRs would have been a sensible recommendation for the committee to have made given the nature of the compliance system, with SafeWork doing random inspections. In recent years campaigns have improved compliance but as those resources get redirected, we can expect those in the industry to return to old habits, which is a major problem. I will also talk briefly about recommendations 4 and 5 in this report, which were not supported in full by the Government—the Government supported them in principle. If we are going to protect workers in this industry, where there has been exposure and workers have the early signs of occupational illness arising from that exposure, it is critical that they are supported to transition out of the industry. There is not a structure to provide finance for Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5210

that to occur. Recommendations 4 and 5 were directed to that. Unfortunately, the Government has not actioned that element of the report's recommendations. Many of the recommendations have been actioned since the report was brought down and that is very good. The Standing Committee on Law and Justice takes its job very seriously. All of my colleagues who participated in this inquiry took the issue incredibly seriously. We have produced a very good report, which should lead to significant improvements in this area. The Hon. GREG DONNELLY (17:41): On behalf of the Hon. Wes Fang: In reply: I too make a contribution to the take note debate of the report of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice entitled 2019 Review of the Dust and Diseases Scheme: Silicosis in the manufactured stone industry. My colleague the Hon. Anthony D'Adam covered some of the key points that I was going to cover, so I will not repeat them. I think he is being a bit modest, notwithstanding the fact that he may not have been able to be there in person and participate as fully as he would have liked. He has a degree of expertise in workplace occupational health and safety and he was able to clearly inject that into the prosecution of key questioning, particularly when it came to dealing with witnesses. In some instances, he may have done that remotely or through supplementary questions to those witnesses. Some of the employer organisations that provided evidence to the inquiry—without reflecting on them individually or personally—perhaps made the general statement that they preferred a light touch approach to the way in which these matters be dealt with. That is precisely the opposite way in which this matter should be dealt with. Without drawing strict parallels—because it would be improper and inaccurate to do so—all members would be well and truly aware of the tragic history associated with the exposure of workers to asbestos, specifically individuals becoming diseased with asbestosis and ultimately dying from that occupational disease. It is important not to draw strict parallels between the two. However, a concern that I had, and I am sure the Hon. Anthony D'Adam and the Hon. Daniel Mookhey had, was around what appeared to be somewhat of a slow movement—I will not say a snail-like movement, but it was not much quicker—by the Government towards an appreciation of the diabolical nature of what this disease can mean for workers. At the end of the day, workers die from silicosis. It is a disease. Significant international research is readily available for anyone who might like to spend just 10 minutes googling on the internet to find out about the width, depth and height of silicosis. We observed that the Government did not appear to be taking this matter as seriously as we believed it needed to be taken. A significant report was produced. I do not intend to go through it; it is over 106 pages. As one will see if one looks at the index, it goes through the whole matter of silicosis as an occupational disease and all related issues associated with the tackling of it. The report made 14 recommendations. I am supportive of a report having a finite set of precise, clear recommendations. The Government's response to the report has been forthcoming. We have received the Minister's response to the recommendations. Only six of the 14 recommendations were supported. Seven were supported in principle. Those who have been around have a general sense of the meaning of the words "supported in principle". It means that the report has been read and a nod has been given to it, but that is essentially about it. One recommendation is not supported at all. One of the key challenges of tackling this insidious occupational disease is the complexity and the nature of the industry. Time does not permit me to go into this in significant detail. The industry ranges from large standalone sites—which are highly mechanised with what can be very sophisticated exhaust and extraction equipment, and the provision of what can be very high quality, high standard protective equipment for workers on those sites—right down to the single-person or father-son operation who are involved in the cutting of manufactured stone in the building industry. It is common for those small-scale operations to be associated with the significant unit developments that we see all around Sydney. Obviously a whole range of other possibilities are in-between. We are dealing with something quite complex and detailed. As the Hon. Anthony D'Adam said, it was disappointing that we were not able to get greater certainty over the appointment or election, and the ongoing presence, of occupational health and safety workplace representatives at the large sites to ensure the maintenance of equipment and workplace health and safety standards. We must also ensure that there are standards down the scale, so to speak, so that individuals at the most micro level—a man or a woman cutting manufactured stone to fit kitchen benches in units or a father-and-son family business—are protected. Some people who work in this industry have English as their second language. They are not in a good position to understand warning labelling and other identifying information on the manufactured stone to enable them to be more cognisant of the need to be more careful with the way in which they handle it. It is not a case of just getting a saw, cutting this stuff which blows away, someone gets a bit of it in their lungs and life goes on. Obviously there is a cumulative effect and it builds up. There is a need to ensure that workers who have been exposed to this, even at what might be considered to be small or modest levels, are able to have their health checked and monitored on a regular basis. Tragically, if they have become exposed to the point where they have this condition, they should then undergo proper treatment to ensure that their health is Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5211

preserved and that hopefully they recover from it. In addition to that, as the Hon. Anthony D'Adam said, at the very least they should be able to transition out of that industry. I urge the New South Wales Government to revisit its responses to a number of the recommendations and commit to doing much more to tackle a terrible occupational disease. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Courtney Houssos): The question is that the House take note of the report. Motion agreed to. Business of the House POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG: On behalf of Mr David Shoebridge: I move: That committee reports and Government responses order of the day No. 8 be postponed until the next sitting day. Motion agreed to. Committees PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE NO. 1 - PREMIER AND FINANCE Report: Work Health and Safety Amendment (Review) Bill 2019 Debate resumed from 16 February 2021. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Courtney Houssos): The question is that the House take note of the report. Motion agreed to. STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE DEVELOPMENT Report: Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 Debate resumed from 16 February 2021. The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (17:53): I speak in support of the Standing Committee on State Development report entitled Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019. From the outset I commend the Hon. Mark Latham for bringing the bill to the House as a discussion point. More importantly, I commend the Hon. Taylor Martin for his wonderful work in chairing this inquiry. The committee examined the whole fuel cycle, including nuclear power. I thank the committee secretariat in particular for the work that it did in organising this committee. The committee held inquiries over a lengthy period and it engaged in site visits. Importantly, committee members visited uranium mines in South Australia and spoke to stakeholders about the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission and to bureaucrats in South Australia about their approach to nuclear energy. It became clear to members of the inquiry that the O'Farrell Government lifted the ban on prospecting for uranium in New South Wales but we have not seen any great interest in uranium mining in New South Wales as there is no financial incentive for it in this State. Why would we spend millions of dollars looking for uranium if we cannot dig it up out of the ground? A sensible recommendation from the committee was to allow uranium mining in New South Wales. I am glad that the Government, in its response to that recommendation, has supported uranium mining. The next step may be slightly less controversial. We heard from people in South Australia that uranium mining in that State does not feature as a political concern. Trains trundle through the ports there carrying yellowcake uranium. South Australia regulates the extraction of uranium and its transportation around the State— a model that is safe and reliable for uranium mining in New South Wales, and one that the community can trust. But the more contentious issue is nuclear power; it has been a contentious political issue in Australia for some time. The committee found that nuclear power could be viable in New South Wales particularly with the advent of small modular reactors. We heard compelling evidence from NuScale, which is developing small modular reactors. In its climate change policy New South Wales has committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and it is aware that nuclear energy is a form of clean and reliable baseload power generation. At the weekend I was glad that the Minister for Energy and Environment saw the benefits in nuclear power and said that there would be exciting developments in this field in New South Wales. The Government, in its response to this report, indicated that this is an issue for the Federal Government with its moratorium on nuclear power. I echo those sentiments and implore my Federal colleagues to continue this Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5212

discussion and to look at raising that ban on nuclear power generation. It is important for us to have reliable green energy. Nuclear energy will supply reliable baseload power. The committee produced a number of reports that dealt with the cost of nuclear power—an issue that has to be dealt with. There is no doubt that when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing solar and wind generation are the cheapest forms of electricity generation. But when they do not exist—when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing—we need reliable baseload power. I was struck by the comments of the head of the ANSTO, who said that if we were to have renewable energy that was a mix of solar, wind and hydro we would have a lifestyle economy in New South Wales; we would not have industrial manufacturing in this State because that reliable baseline generation would not exist. I do not think that is desirable for anyone or for our economy in New South Wales. The electricityMap app shows us the current output of electricity generation globally. Those outputs that are shown in green on that map, in particular in European countries or jurisdictions in North America, are in green as those jurisdictions have a large cohort of nuclear generation. An example is France. The level of nuclear generation that exists in France is clean, reliable and safe. If we look to China and its recent National People's Congress—I will refer to The Economist here—literally the only pathway that China has outlined to achieve zero emissions and reduce its carbon output is to increase its generation of nuclear power from 52 gigawatts to 70 gigawatts. That is China's path to reducing its carbon emissions. If we look at the industrial world, it is on the basis of clean, green nuclear power that we are seeing electricity generation and a path to zero emissions. If Australia is desirous of net zero emissions by 2050—as New South Wales has already indicated—nuclear really should be in the mix if we want to have the kind of economy that we have at the moment. We have some estimates of the levelised cost of electricity. NuScale put it at about $60 per megawatt-hour with generation from their small modular reactors. That is what they were aiming for in Idaho. We had some debate on this in terms of the first jurisdiction, or am I getting confused with Idaho National Laboratory? The Hon. Taylor Martin: Yes, and Utah. The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: Utah and Idaho National Laboratory. The Hon. Taylor Martin: So many states. The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: So many states. That would be in American dollars, no doubt. It would be fairly viable as part of the mix in the New South Wales electricity market. It is often said that this is untried technology that is used nowhere in the world, but we see small modular reactors already. We see them in nuclear-powered submarines, so they exist—except for Australian diesel-powered submarines, of course. The technology exists and can be used very safely, so safely that the generator is actually within the cabin where people are living. Nuclear power can be safe. It has been proven to be safe worldwide. Dreadful tragedies have occurred, but Australia does not have a lot of the same challenges, especially when we think of Japan and Fukushima. Australia does not have the same geographic challenges that a country like Japan does. There is a great opportunity in Australia and I hope that in the future there can be some cooperation politically. I know that the Labor Party has a very defined policy against nuclear power and against uranium mining. I acknowledge that the Hon. Mick Veitch and the Hon. John Graham very much outlined the Labor Party's policies to us in our deliberations. Even with those stated policy positions, all members approached the inquiry with a certain level of interest. The Hon. Taylor Martin: An open mind. The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: I would not say an open mind, but a level of interest in understanding the technology better and the situation in New South Wales. Even though we had diverging views, we had a fairly cooperative committee that was interested in being able to create the best energy— [A Government member interjected.] Yes, I note the participation of the Hon. Mark Buttigieg in the committee's deliberations. I commend the Hon. Taylor Martin for this report. I look forward to the Government making further strides on this front and I welcome the acknowledgement of the Minister for Energy and Environment of the future of small modular reactors in New South Wales. I implore my Federal colleagues to revisit the moratorium on nuclear power in Australia. The Hon. WES FANG (18:03): I am pleased to join the chorus of support for what was a fantastic report by the Hon. Taylor Martin and the Standing Committee on State Development on a bill brought to this House by the Hon. Mark Latham. The Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019 posed a number of questions for the committee to look at such as removing the restriction on mining uranium, which, in Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5213

places like South Australia, provides a fantastic addition to the State's economy. The indications are that potentially there is a vast deposit of uranium in the west of New South Wales that could provide this State with a wonderful resource to produce clean energy not only for ourselves but also for the world. The other part of the bill dealt with the removal of the restrictions on nuclear facilities. That was the part of the bill that I was most keen to investigate and, in the end, support because for a long time I have viewed nuclear energy as the only way we can produce baseload power with zero carbon emissions. I was pleased that the report identified the advances in nuclear power generation, not only in the current time but in the near future as well. Small modular reactors are the hope of the side for producing facilities that will provide baseload power at an affordable rate. That is important because where we are seeing electricity prices and generation prices becoming ever more unstable, we need to be able to provide not only industry but also consumers—mums and dads who want to be able to heat and cool their houses—with certainty and affordability. In the long term, nuclear power provides that. The ability of a company to produce small modular reactors on a production line, which can reduce the costs and increase the scalability of the device, and the benefits that come from that—reliability and repetition of manufacture, which reduces the amount of time that it takes to build the device and also the number of production errors—would see the rollout of quite an affordable device. It is certainly attractive to be able to scale modular reactors with up to, say, 12 in a building and to be able to add and remove them as required. If one in 12 reactors was shut down for maintenance, only one-twelfth of production capacity would be lost, as opposed to shutting down a whole reactor to maintain it. This means there is more stability in the grid. Small modular reactors could provide a number of advantages to this State's path to zero emission power generation. We heard from experts in the nuclear industry in this State, in this country and from overseas, who spoke of the excitement around this emerging technology. We also heard from the detractors. There were a number of environmental groups and unions that opposed nuclear power, and they seemed to base a lot of their opposition on the old large-scale nuclear facilities. Certainly history shows us that those facilities were potentially less able to withstand incidents or accidents. We know that the modern designed small modular reactors are able to be put into a fail-safe mode, which provides some certainty for communities around nuclear reactors. I said publicly after the report was released that I would be more than happy to live right next door to a small modular reactor facility. In fact, I would have one in my backyard, because I believe that we cannot have this "not in my backyard" mentality. As an advocate for zero carbon emission power generation, I would be prepared to have that facility in my backyard, because I believe it is safe. That is how much confidence I have in it. For those members of the inquiry who are not prepared to do that and say that, that is something we should be trying to communicate. I put on the record that I would be more than happy to live next to one. There are a number of other benefits that we talked about in the report. The size of our country, the population density and the way it is distributed provides a number of benefits, not only just through power generation but also for things like desalination. We know those industries are very electricity heavy. To desalinate seawater takes a lot of electricity and energy. Perhaps attaching a small modular reactor to a desalination plant might provide a greater source of freshwater for this country. Moving forward, there are a number of other industries which we know are energy and electricity heavy. This scalable, small modular reactor might provide some benefits for those large-scale industries which at the moment are almost at the mercy of the grid and the power that is being drawn from it by their high power demands. I congratulate the Hon. Taylor Martin and the committee on a fantastic report. We live in exciting times and there will be many developments in the next decade or two around what we do with energy generation. This Parliament was able to investigate and look at the issues to formulate a report which was measured in its language and acknowledged that there are differing views on all sides of the political divide. If we are to get to zero emissions and provide affordable electricity to the people of New South Wales I am certain that nuclear energy will provide one of those options should the Government decide that is what it elects to do. I once again thank the Hon. Taylor Martin for a fantastic report and commend it to the House. The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (18:13): I also speak in debate on the Standing Committee on State Development report on the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Repeal Bill 2019. As speakers have outlined, it was no surprise to the other committee members the position that the Hon. Mick Veitch, the Hon. Mark Buttigieg and I took into this inquiry, because Labor has had a longstanding and unequivocal platform position on a range of these matters in relation to nuclear exploration, extraction and export. We came in and were clearly advocates of the platform position that Labor has long held. This was a valuable committee exercise for the Opposition team, regardless of that. I congratulate the committee chair. I was pleased with how the committee was conducted, and while I disagree with the position the Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5214

chair has taken in advocating in this Chamber, it does him a lot of credit that he has been prepared to express a strong view—a view that has been presented in advance of his party's position at the time. He has developed a strong view out of this committee process. He has gone out and advocated for it, and that is how politics should happen, not only for the conduct of the committee but also subsequently. That is greatly to the credit of the chair. I have no doubt that he will make a contribution in this Chamber over a long period. Opposition members of the committee took the view that while we were interested in how this was developing, there was an opportunity cost to these discussions about what sorts of energy New South Wales would use down the track. Any of the legislative sponsorship, investment, time and effort we spend clearing away the hurdles for one sort of energy—nuclear energy—we would like to see invested in the urgent task of backing in renewables, firming and storage to support those. There is an opportunity cost to how the State works. Things are moving so fast on that side of the ledger and energy spectrum that that is really where the attention should be. That is where the legislative sponsorship should be, where the investment and the action of the Government should be. That is the Labor view at the moment. Of course, we should consider a range of options but there is an opportunity cost when it comes to the actions that a government takes. To be clear, Labor's position—and this is the position we took to the electorate—is that we will maintain a ban on uranium exploration, extraction and export. A Labor government will not introduce nuclear power in New South Wales. That is the view we took to the electorate in 2019. It was the view we took to this report. We recognise the significant impact that energy costs are having for New South Wales consumers. Some people just simply cannot afford the increases in power prices in New South Wales. It falls unequally across the State. We have this incredible solar panel take-up, which has been remarkable and which greatly assists some people. A lot of working class families and a lot of people who have kids cannot afford to pay the prices as they rise. We went on to note in the report the evidence of one witness who argued that Australia went from an electricity price outlook of 4 per cent increase per year in 2006, to an outlook of 4 per cent increase per month in 2019. We know what that does to people who are struggling to pay the bills and to keep the lights and the heater on. That is unsustainable. That is why the attention that has been paid to energy is important. I recognise that we spent quite some time last year doing that, but that should be central to the concerns of this Chamber. I commend those aspects of the report. I commend the other report by the Select Committee on Electricity Supply, Demand and Prices in New South Wales—both important contributions to that discussion. Those power prices should be central to our concerns. They are certainly central to the Opposition's concerns. I recognise the importance of climate change in dealing with this issue. As a child I walked in the Palm Sunday marches with my mum and dad in Albury and in Newcastle. A lot of my fears and my friends' fears as children were really about nuclear war— some of those conflicts and what that might mean. My kids or other children of this generation are far more likely to be worried about catastrophic climate change. They deeply fear that and worry about it at night. We must recognise and bear in mind that is a real change that captures the minds of this young generation. We should challenge ourselves to look at these questions. That is why we moved and supported the recommendations that would see the Government continue to monitor new developments in energy technology. We drew attention to the presence of the ANSTO facility in Sydney where there is a remarkable cluster of nuclear scientists who are keeping track of this developing technology. Australia has the incredible strength of being able to keep track of the latest technology, how it can be used, how it changes and what its implications might be. That is an incredible comparative advantage for Australia and New South Wales and it complements our existing universities and their research in this area. We are very supportive of that research. We do not say there should be a closed line, as we have to keep up as things develop, but we do not support a change in the mix, for the reasons I have outlined. We believe the NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer has a key role to play to map out the research strength of the State and to advocate to this place and to Executive Government in a far more powerful and systematic way. It is such a valuable role to play. As other members have said, there has been a lot of discussion about small nuclear reactors. I note the contribution of the Hon. Wes Fang. I encourage members of the public not to take nuclear advice from any member of this Chamber. I also encourage the Hon. Wes Fang, before he puts a small nuclear reactor in his backyard— bearing in mind none exist at present—to sidle up to Dr Kerry Chant and seek extra advice and assurance before he digs up his backyard. At the moment there are no small nuclear reactors that are operational and developing. There have been plenty of promises. The study by the British Department of Industry into that technology indicated that they could be up to 30 per cent more expensive than other nuclear power. The central caveat is that this industry has promised much over the years, but it has not delivered. There have been plenty of promises about what is just around the corner but often that has not arrived. That underlines a bit of the scepticism that is coming from the Opposition on this matter. Having put those issues on the record, I want to commend this report. Labor has a longstanding platform which we kept firmly in our minds but we were also curious about where this matter was up to. The usual inquisitive approach taken by this committee, along Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5215

with the support of the secretariat, has been a very valuable exercise in this overall area of energy policy, which is fundamental to the economic strengths of this State. There is no area that is more important from a State policy point of view for the economic future of New South Wales than getting the energy policy right. There is no bigger jobs lever and economic lever we can pull. From an economic point of view, that is the most important thing this Parliament has to get right over the coming years. The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX (18:23): I could not help but rise to my feet when I heard the closing comments of the previous speaker, the Hon. John Graham, about the economic importance of energy in this State in driving jobs and the economy, particularly given the difficult times we have faced over the past year. This report was a very strong contribution, albeit before that time, to what could be an energy mix in this State. At the outset, it is important to understand that perhaps in some ways the argument has moved on—particularly our debate in this place during the final days of last year about the electricity infrastructure road map—and at this point of time points very strongly to a future of renewables to fuel the need of energy in this State. Having said that, the door has not been completely closed on nuclear. This report is important in outlining the arguments behind nuclear as a sustainable source of energy into the future. Some of my colleagues have spoken at length and I will not go through the report in great detail. I was not a member of the committee but it has handed down an excellent report. I want to congratulate the chair and the committee on presenting it to this House. Even flying in the face of entrenched opposition from those opposite, it is probably worth going back to look at the arguments that have been, if you like, sustained over time. The committee addressed those arguments in a thoughtful way, particularly in an economic context. It is fair to say there have been massive changes in nuclear technology over the years, as previous speakers have alluded to. As to the scare campaigns about what we will do with the waste—I think that has been at the heart of the Opposition's concerns for a long time—there has been a failure to look at how technology has addressed those issues. The report looks at the small modular opportunities, the lowering of risk and understanding the economic dilemma and has posed the energy trilemma in terms of the environmental sustainability, energy security and affordability and equity. Being able to manage all those areas is very important. I commend the report to the House when looking at the manner in which we move forward. Whilst we have an electricity energy road map, there are issues about that, particularly in relation to firming. I think there may be a role down the track for nuclear, certainly a role for gas. I again congratulate the committee on an excellent report. The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (18:27): In reply: I thank my colleagues the Hon. Scott Farlow, the Hon. Wes Fang, the Hon. John Graham and the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox for their contributions to the take-note debate and their kind remarks, especially on my chairmanship of the inquiry. Debate on this subject is certainly moving forward. Federal Labor members of Parliament have come out in the press—Labor senators and Labor lower House members. Joel Fitzgibbon penned a very well thought out opinion piece in support. He wrapped up by saying: It's time to ditch the political opportunism and scare campaigns. It's time to remove legislative prohibitions on nuclear generation to give investors the opportunity to test community support for the latest and best technology through world's best consultation and science-based approvals processes. I could not agree more. A recent article in The Australian claimed that the majority of Federal Coalition backbench members of Parliament support changing the law in favour of nuclear power. As my colleagues have said, it is good to see our own energy Minister in New South Wales publicly state on the weekend on Sky News that he is hopeful and is watching what is happening around the world, particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, in the small modular space. In my view, informed by the inquiry, Australia will follow the world in this space. The United States is certainly moving, the United Kingdom is not far behind and we will follow over the long term. I commend the report to the House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Courtney Houssos): The question is that the House take note of the report. Motion agreed to. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Courtney Houssos): I will now leave the chair. The House will resume at 8.00 p.m. Bills MARINE POLLUTION AMENDMENT (REVIEW) BILL 2020 Second Reading Debate Debate resumed from an earlier hour. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5216

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (20:00): On behalf of the Hon. Don Harwin: In reply: I thank the Hon John Graham for his contribution on behalf of the Opposition and for his support for the bill. We will move into the Committee stage shortly, where the Government has a few amendments to move. In his contribution the Hon. John Graham picked up on the fact that this bill has come out of the review. It is on course to line up with global International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships [MARPOL] standards. I commend the bill to the House. Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (20:01): By leave: I make a contribution on behalf of The Greens in support of the Marine Pollution Amendment (Review) Bill 2020. The bill changes the Marine Pollution Act 2012 following a statutory review of the Act. Since 1959 the International Maritime Organization has been the catalyst for a significant global effort to minimise the environmental impacts of shipping. Central to this effort is the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, also known as MARPOL. The convention addresses pollution from ships by oil, noxious liquid substances carried in bulk, harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form, sewage and garbage. MARPOL is currently in force in 158 countries, applying to 99 per cent of the world's merchant tonnage, and is considered to have contributed greatly to a significant decrease in pollution from international shipping, particularly from oil spills. The Marine Pollution Act and the Protection of the Environment Operations [POEO] Act operate in New South Wales waters to address pollution. The Marine Pollution Act sets offences relating to five MARPOL pollutants: oil, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances in packaged form, sewage and garbage. The POEO Act has a water pollution offence, which makes it an offence for a person to pollute any waters. While around 80 per cent of all pollution in seas and oceans comes from land-based activities, the environmental impact of shipping includes potential discharges or loss of pollutants at sea, including oil, noxious liquid substances, sewage and garbage. Oil spills can have a devastating impact on the marine environment and affected coastal communities. I am sure that all members have seen distressing images of birds and other wildlife suffocating in oil after spills. In particular, marine debris is recognised as a globally relevant pressure on the marine environment, with increasing reports of impacts on marine biodiversity reported during the past four decades. MARPOL has broadened its definition of garbage to include fishing gear, whereas previously it referred to synthetic fishing nets only. This means that a new definition of fishing gear will be included in the Act to reflect the broader MARPOL definition. That is a good thing and is something that, in 2011 on behalf of The Greens, I moved to include when changes were made to the Marine Pollution Act, so I welcome that amendment to the bill. The Greens also support the broadening of the Marine Pollution Act to cover all State waters, including inland waters such as the Murray River, the Murrumbidgee River, and the Darling River and their estuaries—if there is any water in the Darling at the moment—as well as coastal waters and all port waters. This means that consistent standards for vessels will apply across all New South Wales waters. Greens members are encouraged that the bill changes the Marine Pollution Act to also apply to recreational vessels, which are currently covered under the POEO Act 1997. There has been broad support for the reforms from a range of stakeholders, including the Sydney Coastal Councils Group. The Greens support the bill. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Shayne Mallard): The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. In Committee The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): There being no objection, the Committee will deal with the bill as a whole. The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW (20:06): By leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 to 4 on sheet c2021-001D in globo: No. 1 Prescribed ships Page 10, Schedule 1.1[42], lines 17–18. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead— (b) that is certified to carry 15 persons or more, or No. 2 Garbage record books Page 11. Insert before line 39— [55A] Section 135 Requirement to carry garbage record book on board ship Omit "large" from section 135(1). Insert instead "prescribed". No. 3 Garbage record books Page 12, Schedule 1.1[56]. Insert after line 4— Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5217

(3) In this section— prescribed ship means a ship— (a) that has a gross tonnage of 400 or more, or (b) that is certified to carry 15 persons or more. No. 4 Prescribed ships Page 12, Schedule 1.1[57], line 10. Omit "more than 15 persons". Insert instead "15 persons or more". I am not all that accustomed to moving amendments. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): It is remarkable, really. The Hon. Mick Veitch: My advice is to follow the loq. The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: Unfortunately I do not have one. This minor amendment aligns the Marine Pollution Amendment (Review) Bill 2020 to MARPOL. The garbage management plan and garbage record book requirements in the bill will apply to vessels that can carry 16 people or more. This is required to be amended to vessels that can carry 15 people or more. This minor amendment is due to MARPOL setting different vessel size limits for the application of sewage and garbage administrative requirements. Sewage requirements apply to vessels that can carry 16 or more people, while garbage administrative requirements apply to vessels that can carry 15 or more people. The amendment will only impact vessels that can carry 15, but not 16 people. This and other administrative requirements will be clearly communicated to boat owners via easy to access information. I repeat the commitment from the Minister for Transport and Roads, the member for Bega, in the other place to an education and awareness campaign to ensure that members of the boating community understand the marine pollution prevention measures in place in New South Wales and their individual responsibilities. I understand that the Opposition has queried the relationship between amendment No. 2 that amends section 135, which covers the size of vessels required to carry a garbage record book. I clarify that the Government amendment has no relationship to section 56, the "Defence for discharge caused by damage to ship or equipment". The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (20:08): I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation. As you have perhaps observed with a raised eyebrow, Deputy President, it is unusual to have Government amendments but the Opposition will support them. We accept them in the spirit in which they have been moved and we are relieved to hear that New South Wales will comply with the convention once the amendments are incorporated into the bill. I particularly thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his comments about the education campaign. I did not have time to refer to that aspect of it in my contribution to the second reading debate, but the commitment to get the word out made by the Ministers after the question was raised in the debate in the other place is very important. That will be crucial to the success of the measures. Certainly, as part of the boat licence process in New South Wales there is a lot of good information and a lot of good testing but, in my recollection, not really a focus on the marine pollution issue. We could do better there, and the Minister has committed to doing better. I think that will drive this change home, which is very important as more recreational boats come into the framework that we are now establishing. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the clarification. Labor is happy to accept the Government's assurances on this matter and will support the amendments. Ms CATE FAEHRMANN (20:09): The Greens support the amendments, recognising that they are largely administrative and tidy up a few errors in the original bill. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The Hon. Scott Farlow has moved amendments Nos 1 to 4 on sheet c2020-001D. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Amendments agreed to. The CHAIR (The Hon. Trevor Khan): The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to. Motion agreed to. The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: I move: That the Chair do now leave the chair and report the bill to the House with amendments. Motion agreed to. Adoption of Report The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: On behalf of the Hon. Don Harwin: I move: That the report be adopted. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5218

Motion agreed to. Third Reading The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: On behalf of the Hon. Don Harwin: I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT BILL 2021 Second Reading Speech The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN (20:12): On behalf of the Hon. Bronnie Taylor: I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. This bill makes critical changes to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, which I will refer to as POCTAA herein. There is no need to make this complicated – this bill quite simply will put in place the penalty regime that New South Wales needs to effectively punish those who engage in one of the lowest acts imaginable – the harming of animals, either negligently or deliberately. It significantly increases the penalties for the most common animal cruelty offences, to ensure that those who commit acts of cruelty in New South Wales face some of the harshest penalties in Australia. It's a clear signal of the Government's and public's opinion of this behaviour and the increases will serve as a deterrent against this type of behaviour. Further it ensures that the courts have the option to ban those convicted of the most serious animal cruelty offences from having animals, effectively closing the gap between what is available under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 and the Crimes Act 1900. The absence of this equivalence has at times discouraged prosecuting authorities from pursuing Crimes Act offences. This problem ends with this bill. This Government abhors animal cruelty – and will not tolerate it. The Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales, in the other place, has been emphatic that should we need to act with regard to animal welfare penalties, this Government would. This bill honours that commitment and gives enforcement agencies and courts the ability to seek and impose penalties that more accurately fit the crimes we see perpetrated against animals. To assist those who will engage in debating this bill, I will be very clear as to what this bill does not do: It does not create new offences. It does not target any sector or industry. It does not disrupt or replace current defences contained within POCTAA which clearly defend normal agricultural practices from penalties and clearly outline the circumstances in which they can be undertaken. It does not target pet owners unreasonably or create any invasion of their rights. This bill simply underscores that animal cruelty is already unacceptable and illegal and brings down a harsher suite of measures for those who fall foul of our laws and community expectations. Before I turn to the detail of the bill, I will briefly outline the animal welfare laws as they stand today and the vital work this Government has been doing to reform the laws, a process which has been ongoing for many years now, underlining our dedication to this area. Indeed, back in 2015 the Minister responsible for animal welfare, who introduced this legislation in the other place, chaired the 2015 Parliamentary Inquiry into companion animal breeding practices. The welfare of all animals in New South Wales is primarily protected by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, or "POCTAA". POCTAA sets out general animal welfare offences, such as animal cruelty, and failure to provide food, drink or shelter. More serious animal welfare offences, including intentional and reckless cruelty, are dealt with under the Crimes Act 1900. Off the back of the 2015 inquiry, an inquiry that was truly bipartisan in nature, several changes were made to the regulatory and legislative regime supporting animal welfare. In February 2016 the New South Wales Government released its response to the recommendations made by the Companion Animals Breeding Practices Inquiry, including significant changes to companion animal breeding practices in New South Wales. Twenty-seven recommendations out of a total of 34 were fully supported or supported in part by the New South Wales Government, and the intent of the remaining seven have been addressed through ongoing policy and educational work. In 2018 this Government continued its reform process and introduced a bill making amendments to POCTAA, as a direct response to key elements of the inquiry and its report. The amendments introduced requirements that enable the tracking of puppies from breeder through to owners. These changes allow potential pet purchasers to make more informed decisions and allow enforcement agencies to identify problem breeders. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5219

These changes came into effect from 1 July 2019, requiring people advertising dogs and cats for sale or to give away to include an identifying number. This can be either a microchip number, breeder identification number or a rehoming organisation number, issued to agencies such as local councils looking to find safe new homes for animals in pounds and shelters. Falsifying or failing to include such a number is an offence. This change was supported in late 2018 by the launch of an improved NSW Pet Registry to enhance digital pet registration. The new registry allows enforcement agencies to be able to trace registered puppies and kittens throughout their lifetime. In 2018 in addition to these legislative changes, this Government released the first ever NSW Animal Welfare Action Plan – which sets out a clear path to reforming New South Wales's animal welfare laws. A lot has changed since POCTAA was first introduced over 40 years ago – and that is why we are working to streamline and modernise the laws, to ensure they reflect the latest science, industry practices and community expectations. This is no small task, and we are taking the time to get it right. We remain committed to consulting with the community throughout this process. From February to June 2020, the New South Wales Government sought community feedback on the NSW Animal Welfare Reform – Issues Paper. The issues paper marked an important step in the reform process. It was an opportunity for the community to have its say on the key issues in the current legislative framework, and importantly, to set the direction for animal welfare policy in this State. We received over 1,100 submissions and survey responses during the consultation period from a wide range of community members and stakeholders. Community feedback showed strong support for broader animal welfare reform – there is a clear desire to simplify existing laws and to bring them into the twenty-first century. The Government has taken this feedback on board and we are using it to develop a suite of proposals which will form the basis for the new laws. We will be seeking community feedback on the proposals as we continue to work towards reforming the animal welfare legislative framework. Today, however, we are making critical and urgent changes to the laws – ahead of the longer term reform work. This Government has been very clear throughout the reform journey that any critical and urgent changes would be brought forward as a priority, and this is what we are doing today. The amendments contained in the bill before the House have strong community support – this was evident in feedback received from public consultation. These are changes the Government can make now and can make quickly – addressing an urgent need and closing some gaps and loopholes in the laws. As pet ownership increases, sadly so too does the incidence of issues related to their care. Pets – always a formative part of any family – are now in themselves family members. With more people seeking to be animal owners, we need to also ensure we are sending the right signals about what we as a community and a government expect in relation to their welfare. Many of the changes leading up to today have encouraged traceability, transparency and accountability, giving pet owners and those wanting to purchase animals more chance to understand their providence and help report bad apples to enforcement agencies. Today, this bill continues that process by now ensuring the suite of penalties available is appropriate and is the deterrent we need to prevent and punish anyone who engages in animal cruelty. In addition to these changes before the House today, the Government partnered with RSPCA NSW last year and provided funding to set up a dedicated taskforce to crack down on puppy factories. The taskforce has been out on the ground working to identify and tackle breeders who fail to comply with animal welfare legislation and Codes of Practice. At 31 December 2020, inspectors had attended 84 breeding establishments, conducted a total of 44 revisits and commenced two prosecutions. However, there is still more to do to tackle this problem. The set of measures in this bill will dramatically increase both maximum financial penalties and gaol time for offenders, and enhance the range of tools available to the courts to effectively deal with animal welfare cases. I will now turn to the details of the bill. These are in two key areas: ● increasing penalties for animal welfare offences; and ● increasing the range of tools available to courts to deal with animal welfare cases. Firstly, to the increased penalties for animal welfare offences. Penalties play an important role in the enforcement of, and compliance with, animal welfare legislation in New South Wales. Penalties should influence the behaviour of individuals to improve animal welfare outcomes and deter potential offenders. Penalties should also reflect society's expectations. This bill proposes to increase the statutory maximum penalties for key animal welfare offences under POCTAA. New South Wales will have some of the highest penalties for animal welfare offences in the country. Schedule 1 to the bill increases the maximum penalty for failing to provide food, drink or shelter from $5,500 to $16,500 for individuals, with corporate penalties increasing from $27,500 to $82,500. These maximum fines are three times higher than the current amounts. Schedule 1 to the bill also increases the maximum penalties for an individual committing an act of cruelty. Under the new laws the maximum penalty will increase from $5,500 and/or six months' imprisonment to $44,000 and/or 12 months' imprisonment for individuals. The corporate penalty will increase from $27,500 to $220,000. This is double the current maximum imprisonment term, and the maximum fines are eight times higher than the current amounts. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5220

Schedule 1 to the bill will also increase the maximum penalties for committing an act of aggravated cruelty. The maximum penalty will increase from $22,000 to $110,000 for an individual and from $110,000 to $550,000 for a corporation. These maximum financial penalties are five times higher than the existing penalties for aggravated cruelty. Schedule 1 to the bill repeals subsection 34 (2) of POCTAA. This provision currently limits the maximum financial penalty that can be handed down under POCTAA by a magistrate in the Local Court, and is being removed to ensure that the Local Court is able to hand down the new penalties being established by this bill. As I said, penalties should reflect community expectations. We occasionally hear horror stories of animal cruelty – and sometimes the punishment does not seem to fit the crime. For example, in 2017, a man was captured on CCTV (in an elevator) kicking and repeatedly punching a dog and swinging the dog in the air by its neck using a choker chain. The dog was heard crying loudly afterwards and despite best efforts the dog's body was never found. That man was found guilty of animal cruelty and fined $5,500. Under the new laws the man would be facing a fine of up to $44,000 and up to 12 months' imprisonment. This bill is focused on the penalties for three offences – of cruelty, aggravated cruelty and failure to provide food, drink or shelter. Data indicates that these are the most common offences, making up 95 per cent of charges laid under POCTAA between July 2009 and June 2019. The penalties for less common offences are being reviewed as part of the broader reform to the legislative framework. As I said earlier, the Government will be seeking the community's feedback on proposed changes to those penalties as part of the reform consultation process. In addition to the above penalties, which are issued by the courts, people who break certain animal welfare laws can be issued a Penalty Infringement Notice by a POCTAA inspector. Penalty Infringement Notices can be issued for the offences of cruelty to animals and for failure to provide food, drink or shelter. These notices are used as an alternative to prosecution if an inspector believes that issuing a penalty notice is the most appropriate response that reflects the seriousness of the offence, or if it is more likely to achieve a better animal welfare outcome. The current penalty notice amounts are set out in the regulations. These amounts were set in 2005 and have never been increased. Public feedback on these amounts has shown strong support for an increase. Schedule 2 to this bill increases the Penalty Infringement Notice amounts for the failure to provide food, drink or shelter offences from $200 to $500 for an individual, and from $1,000 to $2,500 for a corporation. Schedule 2 to this bill will also increase the Penalty Infringement Notice amount for cruelty from $500 to $1,000 for individuals and from $1,500 to $5,000 for corporations. There are Penalty Infringement Notices available for other offences under POCTAA and these are being examined as part of the reform of the animal welfare legislative framework. I now turn to the amendments which increase the range of tools available to courts to effectively deal with animal welfare cases. The courts have the power under POCTAA to issue a range of orders. Some examples of the types of court orders include: ● An order that an animal be produced before the court ● An order for payment of care and maintenance costs by the accused person, and ● An order to disqualify or limit a convicted person from having control or influence over animals. These orders, available under POCTAA, are not currently available under the Crimes Act 1900. This is a loophole – and in practice means that the court cannot use these orders when dealing with the most serious of animal welfare and related offences in the Crimes Act. In practice, this also means that a person found guilty of animal cruelty under POCTAA can be subject to an order disqualifying them from owning an animal. However, a person found guilty of the more serious offence of intentionally inflicting severe pain on an animal under the Crimes Act, cannot have similar restrictions imposed on their interactions with animals. This bill will close this loophole by ensuring that the prosecution can seek a disqualification order upon conviction, regardless of whether the charge was brought under POCTAA or the Crimes Act. The other court orders and the use of alternative summons provisions will also be available under both POCTAA and the Crimes Act. This is a critical change as court orders can be equally as effective as a financial penalty at preventing cruelty and protecting the welfare of animals. The community expects that those who commit serious animal welfare offences be prevented from repeating those disgraceful acts, and this government is delivering on that expectation. Schedule 1 of the bill before the house defines an 'animal cruelty offence' as being any offence under POCTAA in respect of an animal, or offences under sections 79, 80, 530 and 531 of the Crimes Act. Further provisions amend POCTAA to establish that court orders under sections 29, 30, 30A, 31 and 33 of POCTAA may be applied in relation to any animal cruelty offence, not just those prosecuted under POCTAA, but also those under the Crimes Act. This bill also makes minor drafting changes to streamline the process of applying for court orders. The POCTAA enforcement agencies have told us that current arrangements are confusing and inefficient – one order is required to prevent a convicted person from purchasing or acquiring animals and a separate order to prevent a convicted person from keeping, controlling, influencing or caring for an animal. Schedule 1 of the bill clarifies that the court may make an order that prohibits a convicted individual from one or more of these things for the period set out in the order – purchasing or acquiring an animal, keeping or participating in keeping an animal, being party to an arrangement where the person is entitled to control or influence the keeping of an animal, or having any other involvement with the keeping or care of any animal. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5221

Additionally, this bill proposes to introduce a new 'interim disqualification order', available in relation to animal cruelty offences under both POCTAA and the Crimes Act. The interim disqualification order will allow a court to prevent a person charged with an animal cruelty offence from having control or influence over additional animals until court proceedings are finalised. This will help to reduce the risk of further animal welfare offences occurring during the course of proceedings. Schedule 1 to the bill establishes that the court may make an interim disqualification order to prevent a person from acquiring additional animals if the court is satisfied that the person would be likely to commit another animal cruelty offence. It will be an offence to fail to comply with that order. The interim disqualification order does not allow animals to be seized by enforcement agencies, nor require a person to sell or surrender their current animals – it only prevents a person from purchasing, acquiring or having influence over new animals while proceedings are underway. To protect the welfare of animals, POCTAA already provides for enforcement agencies to seize animals in certain circumstances, and if necessary this could occur prior to or during proceedings. So, in cases where animals have not been seized, an interim disqualification order would not prevent a person's business operations from continuing during proceedings with their remaining animals. Where a person has been convicted of an animal cruelty offence, the court may disqualify or limit the convicted person from purchasing or having control or influence over animals. This may also require the person to dispose of animals already in their possession. The interim disqualification order is an important balance to strike so that people who have not been found guilty of an offence are not unduly punished, but the risk of further animals being subjected to harm or having to be disposed of is minimised, should a person be convicted. These orders must be made available as soon as possible. Schedule 1 of the bill also inserts savings and transitional provisions that ensure these new and improved court orders can be used in proceedings that have already commenced but have not yet been finally determined. Schedule 1 to this bill also increases the maximum penalty for non-compliance with court orders from $2,750 to $5,500, and introduces a six-month imprisonment term for non-compliance with court orders for animal cruelty offences under both POCTAA and the Crimes Act. This includes non-compliance with the new interim disqualification order. Court orders are an important tool for safeguarding animal welfare and the penalties for non-compliance with a court order need to be high enough to ensure that people follow them. The increased penalty and introduction of a six-month term of imprisonment will serve as a stronger deterrent to non-compliance. This bill is a key step in bringing New South Wales's animal welfare legislation into the twenty-first century and ridding our society of animal cruelty. The Government remains committed to delivering a new animal welfare framework, which will continue to build on changes in this bill. As we work through this process, we will continue to consult with key stakeholders and the community to ensure that the new framework reflects evolving community expectations. From our enforcement agencies, we value the consistent input of Mark Slater, the CEO of Animal Welfare League and Steve Coleman, CEO of RSPCA NSW. I would particularly like to thank the RSPCA NSW for their ongoing work cracking down on illegal puppy factory activities. I'd also like to thank NSW Police and in particular the Rural Crime Squad headed up by Cameron Whiteside who support the work of the enforcement agencies across the State. I would like to also thank the many thousands of individuals who have been engaging with the Animal Welfare Action Plan over the past 18 months. Numerous stakeholders have also appeared before Parliamentary inquiries focused on animal welfare and their input to the overall legislative process has been valuable and I hope illuminative for all members of this House and the other place. It can be a stressful experience to appear before parliamentary inquiries and have your ownership and livelihood put under a microscope, and I hope that all members keep that in mind when debating various aspects of this bill and the animal sector more broadly. I would like to thank NSW Farmers for their continued advocacy for the agricultural sector. They emphatically support the improvement of the animal welfare sector as they know as does every member of this Government, that farmers are passionate animal welfare advocates. The deep connection between farmers and their animals was something that the Fresh Milk and Diary Advocate touched upon recently. While he's speaking here about dairy animals, this sentiment is applicable to every farmer. I would like to quote him in full: Obviously animal welfare is always an issue to a person who loves cows, handles cows and depends on livestock. I am a migrant. I was born overseas. Both of my grandparents had small dairy farms of about eight and 11 cows. They lived for their livestock. I did a little survey as part of this process as to what makes dairy farmers be dairy farmers … He concluded that: … they love cows. Farmers are some of the best custodians of land and animals in the State and this Government welcomes their input as we work towards modern and fit for purpose legislation. I acknowledge and also thank the Attorney General and his office, and the Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales and his office in developing the robust and appropriate penalty regime before this House today. I'd also like to thank Minister for Local Government and her office for their ongoing support. I commend the bill to the House. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5222

Second Reading Debate The Hon. MICK VEITCH (20:12): I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2021. The objects of the bill are: … to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (the principal Act) as follows— (a) to increase maximum penalties for certain offences, (b) to enable certain powers of a court under the principal Act, to make orders or discharge a defendant and issue a summons against an alternative person, to be available in relation to animal cruelty offences under sections 79, 80, 530 and 531 of the Crimes Act 1900, (c) to allow a court, in proceedings for an animal cruelty offence, to make an interim order against a person if the court is satisfied that, were the person to be in charge of an animal, the person would be likely to commit an animal cruelty offence, (d) to remove the maximum penalty available in proceedings brought before the Local Court. The ministerial ambition for the bill, as presented in the second reading speech incorporated by the Parliamentary Secretary, is: … put in place the penalty regime that New South Wales needs to effectively punish those who engage in one of the lowest acts imaginable—the harming of animals, either negligently or deliberately. The second reading speech goes on to say: … the increases will serve as a deterrent against that type of awful behaviour. Before going into more detail about the bill, I make some general statements about the animal welfare legislative framework in New South Wales, which this bill attempts to strengthen. For several years the Government has been promising that it would bring before the Parliament a modern legislative framework to deal with animal welfare in New South Wales. That is off the back of work being undertaken around a review put in place by then Minister Niall Blair and carried over to the current Minister, . It is now moving at a glacial pace. I am just not quite sure what has happened here. Under Minister Blair there was a clear imperative that this Parliament would be dealing with a new framework for animal welfare issues in New South Wales. Everyone has been operating in good faith that that is going to happen. Clearly, it has slowed down. That means we now have legislation such as this bill, which looks at the penalty regime, which is out of date and appalling. Just about everyone you talk to will say that. But rather than bringing the full changes to the Chamber, we will deal with the penalty regime. The Opposition is not opposing the bill. Labor supports the need to bring penalties into line with those in other jurisdictions in Australia, and that is what this bill tries to achieve. The problem is—and members will note the number of amendments to the bill that are starting to hit the table—that people are going to try to renovate the current Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 [POCTAA]. It is an old piece of legislation and is no longer fit for purpose. This body of work that we have been waiting for needs to come forward. I implore Government members not to slow it down but to get it here in this term of Parliament. We must look at this in the context of the changes that need to take place. I understand and appreciate that this bill is about changing the penalty regime, but there is a body of work that has to be done. I note that Minister Marshall is in the gallery. We are all waiting for it; I implore the Government to bring it to the Chamber. It is critical. The result of what has become a glacial pace in this policy area is that we start to see legislative add-ons. One of the risks is that via an amendment to this bill we will bolt something onto the existing framework or we will renovate a clause of the existing legislation and make it clunky and inefficient and may well create confusion. We will need to consider this at length at the Committee stage of this bill. I turn to the elements and clauses of the bill, some of which were covered in the second reading speech incorporated by the Parliamentary Secretary. There are two key areas of the bill. The first is increasing the penalties for animal welfare offences and the second is what the Minister calls the tools—essentially, what is available to courts in New South Wales to deal with animal welfare cases. Some of these cases are terrible acts of animal cruelty. One of the criticisms I have of POCTAA is that it is a bit retrospective to the issue. It does not do enough in modern society to protect animals from cruelty. Schedule 1 to the bill increases the maximum penalty for failing to provide an animal with food, drink or shelter from $5,500 to $16,500 for individuals. Corporate penalties for the same offence increase from $27,500 to $82,500 per offence. Schedule 1 to the bill also increases the maximum penalties for an individual committing an act of cruelty. Under the new laws contained in the bill, the maximum penalty will increase from a $5,500 fine and/or six months' imprisonment to a $44,000 fine and/or 12 months' imprisonment for individuals. The corporate penalty will increase from the current $27,500 to, as I understand it, $220,000. Schedule 1 to the bill will also increase the maximum penalties for committing an act of aggravated cruelty. The maximum penalty will increase from the current $22,000 to $110,000 for an individual and from $110,000 Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5223

to $550,000 per offence for a corporation. Schedule 1 to the bill repeals section 34 (2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. This provision currently limits the maximum financial penalty that can be handed down under the POCTAA by a magistrate in a Local Court of New South Wales and is being removed to ensure that the Local Court is able to hand down the new penalties established in the bill. The bill also focuses on the penalties for three offences—cruelty, aggravated cruelty, and failure to provide food, drink and shelter. Schedule 2 to the bill increases the penalty infringement notice amounts for the failure to provide food, drink or shelter offences from $200 currently to $500 for an individual, and from $1,000 to $2,500 for a corporation. Schedule 2 to the bill also increases the penalty infringement notice amounts for an act of cruelty from $500 to $1,000 for individuals, and from $1,500 to $5,000 per offence for corporations. Schedule 1 to the bill defines an animal cruelty offence as an offence under the POCTAA in respect of an animal, or offences under sections 79, 80, 530 or 531 of the Crimes Act. Further provisions amend the POCTAA to establish that court orders under sections 29, 30, 30A, 31 and 33 of the POCTAA may be applied to any animal cruelty offence, not just those prosecuted under the POCTAA but also those under the Crimes Act. Schedule 1 to the bill clarifies that the court may make an order that prohibits a convicted individual from one or more of the following for a period set out in the order: purchasing or acquiring an animal; keeping or participating in keeping an animal; or being party to an arrangement where the person is entitled to control or influence the keeping of an animal or having any other involvement with the keeping or care of an animal. That can be done in one order rather than requiring a separate order for each individual restriction. Additionally, the bill proposes to introduce a new interim disqualification order that is currently not available. That means that under the POCTAA and the Crimes Act the new order will be available to the courts. The disqualification order will allow a court to prevent a person charged with an animal cruelty offence from having control or influence over additional animals until court proceedings are finalised. As I understand and appreciate, there is a fair bit of goodwill across the Chamber around changing the animal welfare legislative framework in New South Wales. A number of amendments have been proposed and between now and when we get to the Committee stage there may well be more. As I understand it, those amendments may be further amended or adjusted but there are a number of amendments to consider in Committee. In closing there are a couple of things I want to say about this piece of legislation. A number of members have received emails from dog owners who feel they are currently being subjected to a campaign by the RSPCA. Many of the authors of emails to me feel that the agency is trying to highlight just how far out of date the animal welfare code of practice for the breeding of dogs and cats really is. As I said earlier, the real risk is that we as legislators, who are trying to do the right thing to progress the case for reform in this area, will start to bolt on or renovate existing arrangements—clauses within the current legislative framework. What that says to me is that the framework is outdated; it does not meet modern community standards. We need a commitment from the Minister—in this debate or certainly at some stage soon—that the body of work that was promised by the previous Minister and this Minister will be here in the coming months for the House to apply due diligence to scrutinise, consider and analyse that new contemporary piece of legislation. The bill tells me that if we are looking at adjusting, modifying, or amending the penalties, then that body of work must be a long way off. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. We look forward to giving consideration to amendments in the Committee stage. The Hon. EMMA HURST (20:24): I speak on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2021 on behalf of the Animal Justice Party. An increase in penalties for animal cruelty offences in New South Wales is long overdue. Right now New South Wales has some of the lowest statutory penalties for animal cruelty in Australia. Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979, an individual act of animal cruelty is punishable by a maximum fine of just $5,500, six months' imprisonment or both. An individual act of aggravated animal cruelty that results in the death, deformity or serious disablement of an animal or leaves an animal so severely injured or diseased or in such a physical condition that it is cruel to keep them alive has a maximum penalty of just $22,000, two years' imprisonment or both. That is far behind other States and Territories in Australia, which have maximum penalties many times that size. It is truly embarrassing that the Government has taken so long to do something about the pathetic penalties for animal cruelty in New South Wales. It is even more embarrassing that it has done so only under the threat of the Animal Justice Party introducing its own legislation to increase penalties, which I introduced last year. It is not as though this is a new issue that has suddenly come to the Government's attention. In mid-2018, over 2.5 years ago now, the Department of Primary Industries and the New South Wales Government released the Animal Welfare Discussion Paper: Improving the current legislation – penalties and critical situations. The community response was clear. Of the 2,500 people who responded, the majority thought the maximum penalties for animal cruelty should be increased and 76 per cent supported increasing the amount of penalty infringement notices. The discussion paper also noted that the RSPCA NSW, Animal Welfare League NSW and the NSW Police Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5224

Force—the three enforcement agencies responsible for enforcing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979— all supported an increase in penalties. They said that the current penalties were inadequate and out of touch with community expectations. With the community and all three enforcement agencies firmly on side, one would think that the Government would have been swift to act to increase those penalties. Instead, with full knowledge that New South Wales is the weakest State on animal cruelty, for 2½ long years nothing has been done. While the Government sat on its hands, the existing penalty regime in New South Wales has done nothing to keep animals safe and deter further acts of cruelty. Low penalties insinuate that animal abuse is a low-level crime. It is not. Anyone who is violent to an animal is a risk to the community and to other animals. There is a well-documented link between violence against animals and violence against humans. Research has shown connections between animal abuse and domestic violence, child abuse, elder abuse, gun violence and a higher propensity towards violence in society generally. Of course, low penalties also do not do justice for animals harmed by those vile abusers. While the maximum penalties have remained woefully low, the fines given for extreme acts of cruelty have done nothing to deter future acts of abuse and have not fit community expectations. In 2019, for example, 13 cows arrived at a slaughterhouse in such an awful state that the slaughterhouse workers put in a complaint. All 12 animals were euthanised, yet the farmer was fined only $900. To put that into perspective, that is just $69.23 for each animal that suffered and died. Just this month a Tamworth man was charged with viciously stabbing a dog to death. His fine was just $700. Other recent cases in New South Wales include a $600 fine for beating a puppy and uploading the footage online, no fine at all for beating a mother ringtail possum to death, and no fine for beating and kicking a dog and filming it to send to an ex-girlfriend as revenge. A low maximum fine creates a low benchmark for judges, and that is why this legislation is so urgently needed. I am relieved we are finally seeing this much-needed legislation from Government today. This bill will significantly increase penalties for three offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 and take New South Wales from being one of the softest States on animal cruelty to one of the toughest. Notably, it will increase the maximum individual penalty for animal cruelty to $44,000 and 12 months' imprisonment, and $110,000 or two years' imprisonment for aggravated cruelty. Maximum penalties for corporations have also significantly increased. It is also good to see that this bill—like the Animal Justice Party's bill that preceded it—will ensure that individuals charged with or found guilty of animal cruelty offences under the Crimes Act 1900 can be subject to a disqualification order preventing them from purchasing, acquiring, possessing or having custody of an animal. Previously those orders were not available for these most serious crimes. This was a very serious oversight in the law. It meant that up until today anyone convicted of the most serious acts of cruelty in New South Wales has not been subject to an animal ban—ever. It means that many would have custody of or be working with animals right now. I am glad the bill will close that loophole. While the Animal Justice Party supports the intent of the bill, we do not think it goes far enough. That is why at the Committee stage I will introduce a number of amendments to address some concerning gaps in the proposed legislation. For example, the bill increases the penalties for just three offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. This means at least 40 other offences across the Act and regulations are left with pathetic penalties that do not fit the crime. My amendments will address those ignored provisions and ensure that there is consistency in penalties for offences in the Act and regulations. My amendments will also seek to address a problem with the interim disqualification orders proposed by the Government which would have allowed alleged perpetrators, who the court deemed were likely to commit other offences, to keep their existing animals while they awaited trial. I will also introduce permanent prohibitions on working with, owning or purchasing an animal for individuals convicted of the most serious animal cruelty offences under the Crimes Act, such as bestiality. A major overhaul of our animal protection laws is long overdue and there is so much more to be done in this space. It should not have taken this long, but I am pleased that we are finally taking the first step to bring laws in New South Wales into the twenty-first century by increasing penalties for animal cruelty. The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK (20:31): I love the RSPCA. It was the first organisation I joined. I became a junior member of the RSPCA at the age of eight and I participated in all of their photograph competitions, sending pictures of my dogs. I still have the certificates. I grew up on a farm and animal cruelty and the need to care for your animals is an issue that all families are brought up with. My parents were very careful. We often hear about farmers who are cruel to their animals, but that is very much a small minority. It is normally neighbouring farmers who become aware of what is going on and take action to rectify the situation. It is not the people in town or the people in Sydney. The notifications are coming from other farmers. It must be noted that farmers have a fantastic understanding of what animals need and good animal welfare. They get very upset when they see the wrong thing being done. I will come back to that in a moment. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5225

In 2010 I was shadow Minister for the Environment when Steve Coleman, CEO of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, invited me to inspect the Yagoona premises. The facility at Yagoona has been there for about 40 years and is on Crown land. It really needs government support. It was in such a bad condition that Steve did not consider the facility to be capable of caring for animals and was in the process of closing pens. The crematorium for the animals that were euthanised was a disgrace. It was very upsetting for all the volunteers who worked there. The RSPCA had a $20 million proposal, which I was able to take back to shadow Cabinet and was later endorsed. I am very proud of that engagement. That proposal went through as policy in the Agriculture portfolio. I note that the Government has recently allocated a further $12 million. That facility was badly neglected but is in actual fact being transformed by that funding. I note that the government grants have been matched by community fundraising. As a person who is passionate about the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, I can say that the fact that everything got into such a terrible state reflects the voluntary nature of that organisation. It is a traditional charity; governments have defaulted onto charities. It is an historic situation that needed more support than it was given at the time. But it did not start out as the Government seed funding some organisation; it is actually a traditional charity. I understand the anxiety about why things have taken so long and the fact that they are out of date. That is the only thing I can say as a person who understands the process of government and really loves that organisation. At that meeting Steve Coleman talked to me about the unique role that the RSPCA plays in regulation. It is the only non-government organisation that can go onto somebody's property, has rights of inspection, can issue fines and can prosecute in court. No other voluntary agency does that work. The RSPCA performs that task based on a government grant. It is a very difficult task, it can be a very nasty task, and at times the RSPCA is criticised by people who do not understand what it is doing. To put it bluntly, from the Government's point of view it is a very inexpensive method of regulation. Mr Coleman basically said to me, "If we are not getting more support from you guys, we are asking ourselves why we even bother to do this. We could withdraw tomorrow." In 2010 there was a very difficult drought situation. Graziers have to make hard decisions regarding their animals in droughts. There comes a point where they must cull their herd and that must be done progressively over time. Of course everybody thinks that it might rain next week and farmers have to make decisions based on their experience. There are farmers who leave the whole thing too late. It is shocking to see dehydrated and dying sheep on somebody's property. I see no excuse for stock to get to that condition. As a person who comes from the land, our family had to make those difficult decisions. Every family has to make those difficult decisions. Those decisions must be made far earlier. There was a widow in her 90s whose animals were in terrible shape. The RSPCA tried to negotiate with her to remove the animals but the matter ended in a prosecution. It was very unpleasant for the RSPCA and it incited a lot of emotion in the community at the time. I wanted to give that bit of history to point out how lucky we are that those people do that very difficult job. It is very sensitive work, particularly when dealing with farmers, and they do it with great care and they do it cooperatively. They do not want to be animal police; they want to work with everybody to get good standards in animal practice. Maybe we were naive or it was not in the news, but I have no recollection in the past of some of the shocking acts of animal cruelty that I have learnt of in recent years. It really disturbs me to hear about that behaviour towards animals. In my opinion the behaviour has deteriorated. Again the penalties may not seem adequate. I do not think they are adequate; I agree with that criticism. But the problem has definitely deepened and so the penalties require a response. On the heels of International Women's Week, I note that there is a very strong connection between animal cruelty and domestic violence in people's homes. I would like to see a lot more cooperation between those who are charged with protecting the welfare of animals and those who have the responsibility for the welfare of children and people who are in danger from their abusive spouses. We have an awful lot to learn and a long way to go on that issue. I will make one other comment: I congratulate the Animal Justice Party on a marvellous job bringing these issues to the surface. I have worried about these issues for a long time but they have never really been on the radar. I believe the Animal Justice Party has made a big difference, and Minister Adam Marshall has been very respectful of that. I have been impressed with the speed with which he has moved to address some issues. In terms of a framework, it is strange that in New South Wales wildlife is protected by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, domesticated animals are protected by the RSPCA and the police have a role but only in relation to domesticated animals. On the far North Coast between Port Macquarie and the Tweed border there is one National Parks and Wildlife Service officer who is in charge of the welfare of all of the wildlife in that vast space of land. We had a terrible situation at Lennox Head in my village where a sniper was shooting swamp wallabies. People would discover their bodies while walking, and the community was terribly upset. There could have been 18 or 19 of these swamp wallabies. They are very cryptic, shy animals. It is unimaginable to anybody that this could be occurring. I went to Ballina police station and the response was like, "Sorry. This is a National Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5226

Parks and Wildlife Service matter." So, I tried to find out from them. They had one guy in Port Macquarie and he was already tied up with six months' worth of investigations. I just really thought, "This is a police matter. This is a man on Crown land with a gun. He's shooting wildlife. How can this be duck-shoved onto a National Parks and Wildlife Service person who is over his head in Port Macquarie?" Again, there are obviously different degrees of aggravation, violence and concern, but at the end of the day these animals are helpless and vulnerable and deserve our protection. Perhaps that framework issue that has been spoken about could be better addressed because some of these issues, in my opinion, are definitely matters for the police. We have police everywhere and they can attend to these issues quickly. In certain situations that is what is required. But I certainly congratulate the Government. I am so proud of what has been done for those facilities down at Yagoona; it saved the RSPCA. I do not believe we would even have that organisation today. I know that Steve Coleman and his board have been very appreciative, and many Ministers are very engaged and have visited the facilities. I am very optimistic for the future, and I thank the Minister for this legislation as an important step forward, albeit a first step forward. Reverend the Hon. : Hear, hear! The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (20:41): On behalf of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, I speak in the debate on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2021. Everyone loves a good origin story, so I will indulge the House on the origins of the bill and the impacts it is already having. Once upon a time, there lived an honourable member in a faraway kingdom called the Northern Tablelands. His subjects knew him as the boy prince of Armidale, and he believed this kept him safe. One day the prince awoke to find his kingdom awash with billboards from the Animal Justice Party and animal activist groups alike, accusing the boy prince's kingdom of being a haven for puppy farms. Incensed by this accusation, the boy prince vowed to get tough on these so-called puppy farms. He called on his infantry known as the RSPCA to raid the kingdom of the Northern Tablelands and neighbouring realms and to rid these kingdoms of puppy farms. The prince pledged to make new laws to crack down on animal cruelty and increased fines as the iron fist to deliver justice to the realms. He thought this would keep him safe from the harsh criticisms of the animal rights movement. The boy prince tried to line the coffers of the RSPCA infantry with bounties of silver for their services. He sent them out into the countryside to hunt down their quarry. But no amount of silver coin could help the RSPCA infantry as there was one fundamental problem: They did not know what a puppy farm was. What did they look like? Where would they find them? Their quarry was a cunning one, and the young prince had failed to articulate the correct modus operandi of a puppy farm. No-one in the kingdom or neighbouring realms could tell the RSPCA infantry what a puppy farm was or, indeed, what it was not. So the RSPCA infantry took it upon themselves to influence and adopt their own definition, remembering eons ago when they were under another prince's rule that a puppy farm could be any dog breeder that had been issued with an infringement notice. The RSPCA infantry did not want to return empty-handed. So like the huntsman without Snow White's heart, and in fear of facing the prince's fiery wrath, they cheated. They decided to compile a list of anyone who had sold a dog in the last three years via easily accessible mediums. They compiled a duplicitous list, rebadging the infantry as the "Breeder Compliance Unit", thus allowing anyone to be considered a commercial breeder and then the standards and old codes of practice would apply. Those who made the list and suffered severe financial punishment were simply hobbyists or recreational breeders, as the Hon. Mick Veitch has spoken about. Their primary intent for breeding these dogs was preserving their breeds, not making a commercial enterprise. These breeders have appealed to the prince that these dogs were just pets and only a small number were sold to carefully selected buyers with little to no money made. They were not puppy farms—they have abhorred that label—but the prince turned a blind eye and did not hear them. There were Great Dane breeders of 40 years who, in their retirement, would have only the occasional litter to show. They appealed to the prince, saying, "These dogs are our family. We are not commercial breeders." But, no, the infantry would arrive at their residence unannounced and raid their home in search of a violation. Then there were the Scottish terriers from another realm, bred simply to continue the standard of the breed as companions and to enjoy their company and showcase. They have now had that enjoyment stripped away from them. The infantry has made them fear for their recreation and made them unable to meet the standards the infantry has set that are applicable to a commercial breeder. The German shepherd breeder who labelled these raids as draconian measures has had the pleasure of breeding stripped away from him as the pain is too much to bear. In his words, "The omnipotence, arrogance and inflexible manner to which some of these officers are carrying out their duties are of great concern and anxiety to many." Like the miller's daughter who spun straw into gold, the prince had gained much wealth from spinning hobbyists as puppy farms. He was pleased with his infantry; they had protected him from the animal justice mob. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5227

Unfortunately that is not the case. The yellow brick road that we seem to be heading down is the road to the neighbouring lands of Victoria and Western Australia. Like in those States, if we continue down this path over 20 breeds of dogs will become functionally extinct because of the actions of the RSPCA. Its infantry did not simply stop at dog breeders. Their influence and power wreaked havoc on so many more. They are hell-bent on enforcing their own agenda and we hear of stories of this in the far-off electorate of Barwon. A farmer from Binnaway had his cattle taken away from him by the RSPCA at a cost of $30,000 when the normal cost is $1,100. They refused to provide a receipt, making it impossible for the farmer to claim anything back. The RSPCA told the farmer his cows were mistreated and malnourished. They accused him of cruelty. The farmer was told he could buy them back. He bought back what he could, but it turns out the condition of the cows was such that they sold at record prices. It is unusual to consider cows being sold at record prices when they are apparently malnourished and mistreated. He bought back what he could afford but could not buy back many at all. Another farmer witnessed the RSPCA infantry killing his cattle with a shot to the stomach. Anyone that knows how to put down livestock knows not to shoot them from the side in the stomach. There is video footage of people from the RSPCA stepping on the stomachs of the cattle so that the cattle would appear more emaciated in the photos and it would justify their actions. Nothing can justify those cruel actions. The overreach of the RSPCA is such that now those accused of an act of cruelty against an animal, whether it is true or not, are hesitant to take on the accusation and fight it. They pay the fine because if they do not, the RSPCA doubles down. It increases the holding fees and any other costs associated with confiscating animals, and it bleeds the person dry. It turns out that the prince is perhaps not the hero in this origin story. Perhaps he is Cruella De Marshall, hunter and killer of dogs, and the RSPCA infantry are Jasper and Horace Badun in this cruel tale. In conclusion, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party cannot support a bill that gives more power to the RSPCA, which has abused its existing powers. I ask the honourable member whether they could in reply confirm the rumours circling Hollywood of a remake of the Jim Carrey classic Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and whether it will star the Hon. Adam Marshall. Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (20:48:5): On behalf of The Greens I speak in support of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2021, although I flag that we will be moving a series of amendments to improve and strengthen it. As has been said, New South Wales has some of the most lax animal cruelty legislation in Australia. The strengthening of our animal cruelty legislation to bring our laws into line with community expectation is long overdue. The Greens have been campaigning for better enforcement of animal cruelty laws for the better part of two decades and I am pleased to see this important work making some headway, with the Government doing more to discourage acts of animal cruelty. This bill follows the inquiry conducted by the Select Committee on Animal Cruelty Laws in New South Wales last year, which recommended the increasing of penalties for animal cruelty offences. I also acknowledge the work of the Hon. Emma Hurst in introducing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Increased Penalties) Bill 2020 late last year. There is, of course, so much more to do to prevent animal cruelty in this State. Ending animal cruelty does not stop with just increasing the penalties for acts of cruelty. It means recognising in our legislation what cruelty actually looks like and providing the adequate resourcing to fight it. I will talk more about this later. The Government has been constantly on the back foot with animal welfare. By the Government's own standard set out in its Animal Welfare Action Plan published by the Department of Primary Industries, it is behind on its review and overhaul of animal welfare legislation, regulation and codes. As just one example of many, the new breeders' code of practice is now three years overdue. Other members have spoken about the impact and absurd results that is having around the State. There is nothing more absurd than a fairytale being told about something as serious as animal cruelty. The sad reality is that animal welfare is simply not a priority for this Government. A government committed to the best animal welfare outcomes would enforce welfare and investigate criminal acts of cruelty themselves rather than outsourcing the task to charities, or would at the very least fund those charities to do that work, rather than place the onus on them to fundraise the lion's share of the money required to investigate crimes and prosecute criminals. A government committed to animal welfare would remove animal welfare from the remit of the Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales, whose job is to serve and promote the interests of an industry that is dominated by big agricultural interests, and whose very business model encourages profit-making from animal suffering. The reality of the animal agriculture industry is that practices that are actively cruel—like keeping laying hens in battery cages or breeding pigs in sow stalls— are simply more profitable. In the context of the agriculture industry, the concept of animal welfare is synonymous with the idea of quality of product. Out in the community, views have evolved to recognise that animals are sentient beings that have value beyond their use to humans. Put simply, when the Department of Primary Industries and the Minister Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5228

for agriculture are tasked with making the lives of big agriculture easier, why would they prioritise animal welfare? This is an inherent conflict of interest that was recognised in the final report of the animal cruelty inquiry, and a government that was committed to animal welfare would act to separate those responsibilities. At the very least, a government committed to animal welfare would establish a statutory body independent of the Minister for agriculture to monitor animal protection and oversee the animal welfare framework. This Government, however, has done none of this, and has no plans to do so. In fact, not one recommendation of the Select Committee on Animal Cruelty Laws in New South Wales has been supported by this Government. The select committee made important recommendations backed by evidence and welfare organisations, which, if implemented, have the potential to profoundly change the enforcement of animal cruelty legislation for the benefit of animals across this State. Other recommendations made by the committee include improved data collection and sharing between the three organisations that enforce the laws and prosecute animal cruelty, increased public accountability for the charities that enforce our animal welfare laws through release of their annual reports, the opportunity for public hearings in Parliament and a requirement to comply with Government Information (Public Access) Act requests. The upper House of this Parliament is doing the Government's work for it. The animal cruelty inquiry came about as a direct result of the Government dragging its feet on the animal welfare legislation review, and doing the bare minimum of public consultation on the legislative overhaul that is supposedly coming later this year. The Hon. Emma Hurst is doing the Government's work too. The Government issued a consultation paper on penalties in 2018, and is only now actioning the clear call from the public because of the threat of a private member's bill. To be honest, we are getting really fed up with doing the Government's work for it. So while I was glad to hear from the Minister during the recent budget estimates hearings that the planned overhaul of our animal welfare legislation is expected to be presented to Parliament by the end of this year, we must take the opportunity to improve the current legislative understandings of what constitutes a criminal act of animal cruelty and increase prosecution powers in line with other serious crimes. I foreshadow that The Greens will move amendments to address this as well so as to ensure that the much-needed and now three years overdue update to the code of practice for the breeding of dogs and cats is completed in a timely manner. The Hon. LOU AMATO (20:54): I support the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2021. The New South Wales Government is committed to improving animal welfare in line with community expectations. Some aspects of animal welfare legislation in New South Wales are almost 40 years old. Over the past 40 years a lot has changed in our understanding of animals, particularly our companion animals. In addition, our society expects more people to be more responsible for their animals and feels that people who harm animals deserve stronger penalties. In May 2018 the New South Wales Government released the first ever NSW Animal Welfare Action Plan. The action plan strives to ensure that people responsible for animals provide for their welfare in line with the best available science and community expectations. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2021 is a step forward in modernising our animal welfare legislation. In February 2020 the Government released the Animal Welfare Reform Issues Paper for public consultation. The issues paper sought community feedback on issues with the current animal welfare framework. The Government received feedback from over 1,100 stakeholders representing a wide range of views on the shape of new welfare laws to protect animals. The feedback showed strong support for law reform, including increased penalties and increased powers of the courts to provide orders to protect animals. The consultation responses were the basis of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2021, which is a positive step forward in better regulation for animal welfare. Enforcement of animal welfare legislation in New South Wales is undertaken by the RSPCA NSW, the Animal Welfare League NSW and the NSW Police Force. The changes in the bill have been requested by the enforcement agencies to enable them to better protect the welfare of animals in New South Wales. During the COVID-19 pandemic we have seen demand for pets skyrocketing and reports of puppy factories on the rise. Last year the Government partnered with the RSPCA NSW and provided funding to set up a dedicated taskforce to crack down on puppy factories. The taskforce has been on the ground working to identify and tackle breeders who fail to comply with animal welfare legislation and codes of practice. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2021 increases penalties for key animal welfare offences and increases the range of tools available to courts to effectively deal with animal welfare cases. The bill will close a gap in existing animal welfare laws, where people convicted of the most serious cruelty offences under the Crimes Act 1900 cannot be banned from owning animals. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2021 creates no new offences. Defences contained within section 24 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act still apply. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2021 increases statutory maximum penalties for key offences in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979. Convictions of animal cruelty penalties have been increased from $5,500 and/or six months' imprisonment to $44,000 and/or 12 months' imprisonment for Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5229

individuals and from $27,500 to $220,000 for corporations. Convictions of aggravated cruelty have increased from $22,000 and/or two years' imprisonment to $110,000 and/or two years' imprisonment for individuals and from $110,000 to $550,000 for corporations. Convictions for failing to provide food, drink or shelter have increased from $5,500 and/or six months' imprisonment to $16,500 and/or six months' imprisonment for individuals and from $27,500 to $82,500 for corporations. Penalty infringement notices issued by authorised bodies have been increased for key offences in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Infringement notices issued for animal cruelty have been increased from $500 to $1,000 for individuals and from $1,500 to $5,000 for corporations. Infringement notices issued for failure to provide food, drink or shelter have been increased from $200 to $500 for individuals and from $1,000 to $2,500 for corporations. The bill makes existing Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act court orders and alternative summons provisions available for the more serious animal welfare and related offences under the Crimes Act 1900 and provides courts with more options to deal with animal welfare cases. The bill introduces interim disqualification orders for animal welfare charges brought under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Crimes Act 1900, which would prevent a person from acquiring new animals while proceedings are ongoing. It increases statutory maximum penalties and introduces a six-month maximum imprisonment term for noncompliance with a disqualification order, interim disqualification order or a court order to surrender an animal. The bill introduces transitional arrangements enabling the new and improved court orders to be used in proceedings that have already commenced but have yet to be finalised The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2021 is a well thought out bill that addresses many of the outdated attitudes towards animals. The Government is committed to the eradication of cruelty to animals and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2021 is a positive step in the right direction. I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales, Adam Marshall, on his work on improving the welfare of animals in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE (21:00): On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, I speak briefly in support of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2021. Other members have gone through the penalties outlined in the bill and I will not repeat them, but the bill increases the penalties for key animal welfare offences and extends the range of powers available to courts to deal effectively with animal welfare cases. The bill closes a gap in existing animal welfare laws where people convicted of the most serious cruelty offences under the Crimes Act 1900 cannot be banned from owning animals. Under this legislation, those people will be prevented from owning animals and continuing their cruel treatment of them. The bill will increase the penalty for the offence of cruelty from $5,500 and six months' imprisonment to $44,000 and 12 months' imprisonment for individuals, and from $27,500 to $220,000 for corporations. That is just one example of the increased penalties. We also support in principle the amendments proposed by the Animal Justice Party and thank it for the work it has done in mobilising public opinion to bring in this legislation. The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN (21:02): On behalf of the Hon. Bronnie Taylor: In reply: I thank the Hon. Mick Veitch, the Hon. Emma Hurst, the Hon. Catherine Cusack, Ms Abigail Boyd, the Hon. Mark Banasiak, the Hon. Lou Amato and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for their contributions to this evening's debate. Before I respond to the individual contributions to the debate, I will discuss the overarching theme looked at by all members and re-emphasise the work being done by this Government to reform animal welfare laws. As the Minister for Agriculture and Western New South Wales has said many times in the other place, and very recently at budget estimates, this Government remains committed to delivering new legislation in 2021—and we are doing so in consultation with the New South Wales community. When we move to the Committee stage of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill 2021 we will no doubt debate amendments that are currently being considered through the reform of animal welfare laws under the NSW Animal Welfare Action Plan. In fact, some of the amendments put forward today were included in our issues paper. That paper set out the key issues that the Government had identified in the existing framework based on consultation with key stakeholders. The paper was released for public consultation last year and received over 1,100 responses from stakeholders and the public. The feedback we received on the issues paper is being used to develop a set of proposals to shape the new animal welfare laws, which we have committed to release for public consultation. Again, the Minister in the other place indicated that these proposals will be released imminently. The Government's pathway to reform is a robust process that ensures the community has the opportunity to have its say on the new laws and identify any issues or unintended consequences that need to be considered before those changes are put into law. The bill has a targeted focus, to make interim amendments that address critical issues around animal welfare penalties ahead of that reform work progressing. This is not a bill for making ad hoc Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5230

amendments. It is not a bill for getting in ahead of the broader reform. We have a robust process in place to deliver new animal welfare legislation by the end of 2021 that is built around the need for the community to have its say. The bill increases the maximum monetary penalties and terms of imprisonment for key animal cruelty offences in this State. The bill also increases the penalty notice amount for key animal welfare offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act [POCTAA]. It ensures penalties meet the expectations of the New South Wales community and are proportionate to the seriousness of the crime committed. This bill also increases the current financial penalty and introduces a new imprisonment term for not complying with a court order. Noncompliance with a court order is a serious offence and the penalty must reflect this to act as an appropriate deterrent to potential offenders. In addition to increasing penalties, this bill expands the range of tools available to courts to deal with animal welfare cases. The bill introduces a new interim disqualification order. The interim disqualification order prevents a person from acquiring new animals while proceedings are ongoing, to reduce the risk of further animal welfare offences occurring during the proceedings. With this bill, court orders under POCTAA will also be made available for more serious animal welfare offences and other animal welfare related offences under the Crimes Act 1900. This gives courts a wider range of tools to draw upon when dealing with cases involving animals under the Crimes Act 1900, including bestiality offences. In relation to the specific points raised by the Hon. Mick Veitch and the Hon. Emma Hurst about the progress made on the commitment to modernise and streamline animal welfare laws, I highlight that the Animal Welfare Action Plan, released in May 2018, committed to introducing new legislation in 2021. As I have already said tonight, the Government is on track to meet this commitment. The increases to animal welfare penalties contained in this bill were being progressed as part of the broader reform process, however heightened puppy factory activity during the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to increase penalties immediately. We have always said that any urgent changes to address key gaps could be progressed ahead of the reform. Regarding the issues raised by the Hon. Mick Veitch and the Hon. Mark Banasiak around the Animal Welfare Code of Practice—Breeding dogs and cats, the New South Wales Government understands the concerns of some dog breeders. All people breeding dogs or cats for fee or reward are required to comply with the code, and we are working to develop information to assist them in meeting their obligations and understanding the requirements of the code. In relation to Ms Abigail Boyd's comments regarding the timing of the breeding code's review, which were also reflected in the remarks of the Hon. Mick Veitch, the first step of reforming the laws is focused on setting the policy direction through a new Act. Review of the regulation and codes will commence once a new Act is in place. This is a commonsense approach that reforms the laws from the top down, setting the high-level legal and policy principles before making changes to the codes. Today the Government is responding to community expectations about the seriousness of animal cruelty offences. This bill is the Government's first step in modernising New South Wales' animal welfare legislation. It will provide for a stronger animal welfare framework in advance of the broader animal welfare reform, and will immediately improve the outcomes for animals in this State. I commend the bill to the House. The PRESIDENT: The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Motion agreed to. The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN: On behalf of the Hon. Bronnie Taylor: I move: That consideration of the bill in Committee of the Whole stand as an order of the day for the next sitting day. Motion agreed to. Adjournment Debate ADJOURNMENT The Hon. DON HARWIN: I move: That this House do now adjourn. HUNTER HYDROGEN HUB The Hon. TAYLOR MARTIN (21:09): Last week I was joined by the Hon. , MP, the Minister for Energy and Environment, to announce that the Hunter is one of two regions in New South Wales set to become the home of the State's first hydrogen hubs, with the New South Wales Government committing at least $70 million to their development going forward. The Hunter is an obvious location for the development of a hydrogen industry due to its access to existing energy infrastructure, sustainable water sources, a skilled workforce, and of course the ports and logistics capabilities for a future supply of cheap, reliable renewable energy. The establishment of hydrogen hubs was identified in the report Opportunities for prosperity in a decarbonised and resilient NSW by the Chief Scientist & Engineer in August last year. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5231

Hydrogen hubs will provide common infrastructure for the local production, use and distribution of hydrogen in the future. They will reduce costs by delivering hydrogen in a coordinated fashion. This model aligns well with Australia's National Hydrogen Strategy, which also anticipates hydrogen hubs that will make the development of infrastructure more cost-effective, promote efficiencies from economies of scale and foster local innovation. The Hunter Valley has been named as a possible location for a regional hydrogen export hub under a Federal Government plan to reduce our emissions. The Hunter has always been an energy powerhouse. Hydrogen offers opportunities for innovation and diversification of industry across the Hunter and we will see new jobs and investment in the region, as well as opening new markets for export. Growing our economic pie and driving ahead into new markets is the key to futureproofing the jobs of our region. As a State it is imperative that we maximise our role in the international hydrogen economy to maintain a strong export base as the world looks for new sources of zero-emission energy. The opportunities presented by hydrogen are huge. Nations like Japan and South Korea, to name only some, currently import most of their energy in the form of coal, oil or natural gas and they will need sources of renewable energy to meet their carbon emissions reduction targets in the future. Both nations have pledged to become net zero emission economies by 2050. In the case of Japan and South Korea, their population density and difficult geography make large-scale wind and solar non-starters. Japan in particular has already committed to be a large-scale hydrogen importer—but right now, there are no large-scale hydrogen exporters. This is an opportunity for New South Wales and Australia to grab with both hands. I look forward to future visits by Ministers on this subject. INDUSTRIAL MANSLAUGHTER The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (21:12): On multiple occasions I have spoken about the need to legislate for industrial manslaughter in New South Wales. The tragic death of a young apprentice, Christopher Cassaniti, following a scaffolding collapse almost two years ago provides a compelling insight into the systemic failure of SafeWork and the New South Wales Government to protect this State's workers. This Government's workplace health and safety regime failed to protect Christopher on the day of his death. It has failed to prevent subsequent incidents of serious injury and death and has now failed to deliver justice for his family. Late last year the New South Wales District Court accepted a guilty plea from that site's principal contractor, Ganellen, for a category 2 offence under the Workplace Health and Safety Act. New South Wales District Court judge Andrew Scotting remarked that the work site risk was so high that the apprentice's death was "almost certain". Ganellen was fined $900,000 for killing Christopher and permanently injuring his colleague Khaled Wehbe. The media reported that Ganellen is insured for the cost of these penalties. The guilty party will not even have to pay the paltry sum of $900,000—the price this Government's work health and safety legislation put on Christopher Cassaniti's life. In their victim impact statements, Christopher's mother and father, Patrizia and Robert Cassaniti, reflected on the promising life of their teenage son, who had recently celebrated his eighteenth birthday. Patrizia remarked that "on April 1st my heart was ripped out, my family was torn apart, my son was taken from us. I have never been the same again." They went on to say, "We are here today because the accused have pleaded guilty for their negligence of my son's death [but] what about the other two charges? Their negligence has broken my family. Their negligence has broken me. I am not sure if I can ever recover from this." Christopher's colleague Khaled Wehbe, who was seriously injured in the same incident, used his victim impact statement to speak about the day and the ongoing toll of his injuries. He recalled, "I was trapped underneath along with a younger colleague named Chris. I was trying to reach out to Chris, who was calling for help, and I could not reach him as I could not move, and I thought I was going to die. Since the horrific accident my life has changed forever. I have had to move in with my sister to care for me. I also cannot work again in the job I loved. I get nightmares of the work accident most nights. I hate to go out. I also have continuous survivor's guilt because Chris died in the accident and I survived." Had SafeWork NSW decided to pursue a higher order category 1 offence that carries a maximum penalty of $3 million, the court may have imposed higher penalties on the guilty employer. Category 1 offences require SafeWork to prove that an employer's reckless actions caused the death or serious injury of a worker. SafeWork's decision to pursue a lesser charge in circumstances where "the scaffold was overloaded and the ties to the building had been removed" speaks to the systemic failure of our workplace health and safety regulator. The Ganellen case highlights the urgent need for this Parliament to examine whether SafeWork's prosecution policies are consistent with community expectation, particularly in cases of workplace fatalities. Years of Coalition neglect have created a situation where the institution designed to protect workers is unable to monitor worksites, investigate incidents to an appropriate standard or to prosecute guilty employers to the full extent of the law. The argument put forward by this Government that SafeWork and the current work health and safety regime are fit for purpose contrasts starkly with the experience of New South Wales workers. Construction, food delivery and transport workers particularly are killed regularly by unsafe work practices. It is rare for those tragic Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5232

deaths to result in penalties for the guilty parties or systemic changes. It seems that the Coalition sees the lives of workers as simply a necessary sacrifice for the New South Wales economy. In my view, the basic principles of fairness and justice, which underlie the trade union movement, are much more compelling. As the New South Wales secretary of CFMEU Construction succinctly put it, "kill a worker go to jail". The New South Wales Government must implement industrial manslaughter legislation to correctly recognise the dire consequences of employer negligence, which causes the deaths of innocent working people. GOVERNMENT GRANT ANNOUNCEMENTS The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK (21:16): I speak on government transparency and, in particular, grants and the processes surrounding their announcements. This is of real concern to me and my Shooters, Fishers and Farmers [SFF] colleagues, all of whom have been left out of the announcements made in their electorates about government grants. The grants are used to pork-barrel. It is lazy politics from a lazy party, pardoned by an arrogant Premier. What a disgrace! It is just another example of how this Liberal-Nationals Government treats the rest of us like idiots. They think we do not know that that grant money is our money. The approach of the fly-in pigeon removing attention from the democratically elected member is offensive to the people who elected that member. The Government Sector Finance Amendment (Government Grants) Bill 2021 addresses that insult and contains significant safeguards against abuse of information being provided to the local member prior to the Government releasing the information. I note the Legislation Review Committee has reviewed the bill and found that the bill may impose on the successful applicant's privacy. My response is that the bill restricts the release of the information and allows the Government to make the announcement. Grants are made from public money. Applicants agree to their information being released, as is appropriate. Grants come from the public purse, yet we are made to swallow the idea that they are borne from government generosity. The bill will require the Government to notify the local member when a grant is being announced. That is how strongly the SFF feels about the way in which this Government abuses the grants process. It uses its so-called duty MLCs—or political pigeons, as we call them—to fly in, deliver an announcement and then fly off, leaving a mess behind. The current process leaves behind hardworking local members who have spent weeks and months rallying groups for grant applications, only to be left out at the eleventh hour. In some cases we have heard that those groups have been told to sign non-disclosure agreements specifically to stop the local member from being involved. What an utter disgrace! In Orange, my colleague Phil Donato has been left out of many grant announcements. There are too many to mention here, but of note is the $551,093 that was announced by a National Party pigeon. The grant was to go towards improvement works for showgrounds at Orange, Canowindra, Manildra, Tullamore, Eugowra, Trundle, Molong, Bedgerabong, Forbes, Cumnock, Cudal and Yeoval. That is 12 towns receiving funding in Mr Donato's electorate. That is 12 times a local member could have been present to assist in an announcement but was shut out. The New South Wales Government has consistently snubbed the member for Murray, Helen Dalton, from events and announcements in her town. After campaigning for dangerous roads to be sealed in Griffith—the Boorga and Dickie roads—the Government had a ledge-perching National Party member fly in to make the announcement. This particular pigeon from another electorate has been flown in on many other occasions for announcements and has left her mess behind. It does not sit well with the electorate of Murray. In fact, it causes outrage all over social media. These people voted The Nationals' members out because of their inability to provide for their electorates. They voted Helen Dalton in and are demanding that respect be shown to their elected local member. The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Wes Fang will cease interjecting or I will call him to order. The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: It costs money to have these pigeons swoop in like they do. It is not just any money; it is taxpayers' money. It should be spent on necessary things like more grants and not on travel and accommodation for desperate National Party members who were thrown out in the first place and are now looking for a cheap publicity stunt. CULTURAL MARXISM The Hon. LOU AMATO (21:20): The Oxford Dictionary defines "insanity" as, one, the state of being insane and, two, actions that are very stupid and possibly dangerous. The Australian National University [ANU], a once respected institution and supposedly a repository of peer-reviewed factual information, has recently succumbed to insanity. Since actions that are very stupid and possibly dangerous seem to be ANU's latest achievements, we can assume something is terribly wrong at the university. One may ask: What stupid and possibly dangerous acts has the ANU engaged in? Apparently I am no longer a father and never had a father or a mother, for that matter. I am now a non-birthing parent who was brought into this world by a birthing parent and a non-birthing parent. The Australian Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5233

National University has disallowed the use of the words "mother" and "father" and replaced them with the ridiculous "birthing" and "non-birthing" parent phrases. Who are we to argue against the brilliance of the ANU? Enough is enough. I can and will argue against the stupidity and dangerous behaviour of the ANU. The cultural Marxists who have obviously infiltrated a once-great institution are attempting to remodel our culture using the seemingly successful cultural Marxist narrative. Looking at the ANU's value statement, one can read the following: We are committed to the service of our nation, through original thinking and through courage in advancing our ideas. The ANU is not advancing its own ideas but preaching existing doctrines formulated in the last century by the Frankfurt School of sociology—the brainchild behind cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness. There is nothing original in the ANU's thinking nor does it involve any act of courage. If the ANU is actively engaging in stupid and possibly dangerous behaviour, the presumption of insanity is warranted. Or is it possible that some other motivation involving cultural Marxism is at play? What does all this mean for the rest of us who still possess sound minds? It means a great deal. However, if the recent past is any indication of where this is going, we can be certain of one thing: The apathy of the sane has allowed the enthusiasm of the insane to dominate. Our youth are being systematically indoctrinated by a learning institution to embrace the cultural Marxist narrative. Many of ANU's graduates will eventually hold positions of power in our community. Do we want these graduates who are totally indoctrinated into the evils of Marxist ideology at the helm of our corporations, government departments and our parliaments? We cannot allow a learning institution to facilitate the reality of George Orwell's novel 1984. Although 1984 was a fictional work, the actual workings of Marxism and its total destruction of democracy, freedom and personal autonomy are terrifyingly stated in the text. Those familiar with the work will undoubtedly know of the term "newspeak". Newspeak is the eradication of words with the replacement of new terms that restrict freedom of speech and direct one to communicate inside the cultural Marxist's asylum. If we are not vigilant that will become our new norm and all freedoms we once enjoyed will not even be remembered in the writings of the past. We have seen political correctness ban books for reasons that those of sound mind interpret as insanity. The latest casualty of Marxist insanity is the banning of books by Dr Seuss. The great book burnings are probably not too far away. All references to when our society was once a democracy will be eradicated. The children of tomorrow will have no reference point to a time when freedom was the norm, nor will they possess the vocabulary to express a non-Marxist narrative. They will not have mums or dads. Even their toys, which are already manufactured in the stronghold of communism, will be gender neutral. On the issue of children's toys, the latest madness to surface from the Marxists is the renaming of a toy that for 70 years was known as Mr Potato Head. I had one as a child. So that we do not ruin children's lives by gender stereotyping, Mr Potato Head is now simply "Potato Head". Seriously, have we completely lost the plot? Presently 22 per cent of children in our world are stunted in growth because of poor nutrition and disease. Put simply, they are starving and could not care less about a non-edible plastic potato and if the stupid thing's name is gender inclusive. The tragedy in all of this is that it is not insanity that is driving the cultural Marxist agenda; it is driven by a lust for power, hatred of our culture and the desire to enslave us. The madness is deliberate. HUNGRY PANDA WORKERS ASSET PRIVATISATION The Hon. DANIEL MOOKHEY (21:25): The Select Committee on the Impact of Technological and Other Change on the Future of Work and Workers in New South Wales heard from workers from Hungry Panda, a food delivery company for the Mandarin-speaking community. Jun Yang was one of those workers. James, as he is called, had his pay cut over a period of about a year he had worked for Hungry Panda. His pay started at $7.50 per delivery, then $7. It dropped without notice to $4, and then to as low as $3. James told the inquiry that following the pay cut he received around $150, on average, for about 12 hours' work. That is about $12.50 per hour—well below minimum wage. Of course James was shocked and angry to learn that that his pay had been cut by around 20 per cent to 30 per cent with zero notice. He and dozens of his fellow workers joined together with their union, the Transport Workers' Union, to protest the cuts. After their first strike James and another rider were fired. They were blocked from the app—an apparent retaliation by Hungry Panda and an example of a twenty-first century employer engaging in a nineteenth century employment practice. Out of a job, James did not give up. Workers protested outside Hungry Panda headquarters and withdrew their labour in peak delivery hours to send a message to the company that it cannot operate without its workers. James took his case to the Fair Work Commission and said he was unfairly dismissed and set up a test case in that commission that could determine the status of many gig workers. I am pleased to report to the House that James and his fellow Hungry Panda workers have won their case for decent pay and fair treatment. Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5234

Hungry Panda today reversed its cuts to pay and reinstated James and other riders it sacked by removing them from the app for protesting. The company has also agreed to getting insurance for riders in the event of injury or death, and a commitment to continuing further negotiations with the union and its riders on other matters such as a rider rating system and safety. I and the Labor Party congratulate all the workers who fought for their rights and won. I also congratulate their union, the Transport Workers' Union, on supporting them in this fight. For the first time in a long time in Australia we have seen workers in the gig economy take large-scale industrial action. It is courageous for those workers to take on a company that is worth more than $10 billion and is run through an app and algorithm. Labor applauds them for the improvements they have secured for all Hungry Panda workers. We remain committed to continuing the fight for all gig workers with our comrades in the union movement. They deserve the same rights as every Australian worker: a decent wage, proper entitlements and protection from unsafe and dangerous work. It has been 10 long years under this Liberal-Nationals Government and it has one trick only: to sell the assets that belong to the people. Whether it is health services, roads, water resources, power stations or ports, the O'Farrell, Baird and Berejiklian governments have sold more than $70 billion of public assets. They hide their true intentions by calling it anything other than what it is: leasing, asset recycling, private-public partnerships and franchising. Do not be fooled, it all has the same outcome: taxpayers lose another profitable asset, job losses follow and then service delivery declines. It began months after taking office in 2012 with the Sydney Desalination Plant. In 2013 Port Botany and Port Kembla were next in the firing line, shortly followed in 2014 by the Port of Newcastle. The energy sector has not been exempt. Eraring Energy, Mount Piper Power Station, Bayswater Power Station and Liddell Power Station were all sold. Disgracefully, hospitals have been targeted as well. It is too late for the Northern Beaches Hospital. Publicly funded and privately run, the hospital has been a disaster. There have been shortages in basic drugs and medical supplies, chronic understaffing and doctors expressing serious concerns for patient safety. After 10 long years, privatisation has been a disaster for the people of this State and it has to stop. NATIONAL PARKS The Hon. MARK BANASIAK (21:30): I speak on the issue of accessing national parks. Whether a bushwalker, a camper, a four-wheel driving enthusiast, a recreational fisher or a horse rider, access to local national parks is a problem. Shooters wanting to assist in pest control will probably die trying. National parks should be an immersive, interactive and user-friendly experience for anyone who wishes to venture into them for walks, an overnight camping experience or the use of four-wheel drive tracks. They should also be made accessible to firefighting vehicles via the maintenance of fire trails. However, none of this is the case. Nationals parks are increasingly locked up and those who wish to engage with the Australian bush are prevented from doing so. When national parks were originally established in Australia in 1879, it was so that those living in the city who were subject to air pollution and overcrowding could escape to nature. They were about recreation, picnicking and enjoying the natural surroundings. They were not about conservation. I am not saying that the conservation of the Australian bush is not important—some endemic ecosystems are fragile and must be protected at a higher level to others—but where access can be granted, it should be because it is public land. I was recently approached by a four-wheel driving enthusiast group from the North Coast of New South Wales that had been locked out of using what was once a very popular four-wheel-drive track down to McBrides Beach. The beach is in Booti Booti National Park near Forster. It is a huge attraction for four-wheel drive enthusiasts and is a bit of a secret spot, which I may have just exposed. I apologise to those enthusiasts, but I assure them that it is for the greater good. Four-wheel drivers travel to the area to drive the hard but short track to the pristine shores of McBrides Beach. The challenging access has been regarded often as the reason that the area is not overpopulated and has prevented overuse of the beach. Just because access is provided does not automatically mean that people will travel there in their droves and destroy it. The track starts from the council car park and the beach is no more than a kilometre further along. It is not a huge area to maintain. Nonetheless, it has not been maintained. The track is so degraded that it has been shut down and, according the National Parks and Wildlife Service, it is no longer viable. Section 4.3.1 of the Booti Booti Recreation Area Plan of Management states: The existing four wheel drive track to McBrides Beach will be retained and upgraded. This plan of management was adopted in 1987 and expired in 1997, but no new plan of management was adopted. The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, section 79A, Lapsing of plans of management, states: … Tuesday, 16 March 2021 Legislative Council Page 5235

(3) The board of management is to have regard to a plan of management that has expired until the new plan of management comes into effect. Yet the track has been left to degrade and now access has been blocked with no announcement of an upgrade. The track makes it difficult for pedestrians to access the beach yet that track, which is only accessible via a four-wheel drive vehicle, was one of the main attractions to the beach. As I said, the difficult access ensured that the area was not inundated or overpopulated. Grant announcements have been made for a 560-metre walking track to apparently "maximise accessibility". This will surely result in a less pristine McBrides Beach, which seems at odds with the intention of cutting off access to four-wheel drive vehicles. It is clear to me and the rest of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party what this is: another attack on outdoor recreationalists and another way to lock up the Australian bush because this Government will not invest money or resources into land management. As a public landowner I say, "Not good enough, Matt Kean." The PRESIDENT: The question is that this House do now adjourn. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 21:34 until Wednesday 17 March 2021 at 10:00.