21444

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Tuesday 16 March 2010

______

The Speaker (The Hon. George Richard Torbay) took the chair at 1.00 p.m.

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices of Motions

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS ______

MENAI ELECTORATE WOMAN OF THE YEAR NOMINEE

Ms ALISON MEGARRITY (Menai) [1.05 p.m.]: Last week the 2010 New South Wales Woman of the Year event was held in Parliament House. The Menai electorate nominee was Melinda Cruz. Melinda is the founder and chief executive officer of the Miracle Babies Foundation. This charity raises about $500,000 each year for equipment and resources to assist premature and sick babies. It also provides practical and emotional support for families throughout Australia during their journey through a newborn intensive care unit, the transition to home and onwards. In nominating Melinda I said that her initiative in founding and remaining so committed to the development of an organisation that has supported so many families in my electorate and well beyond it was an inspiration. It was a pleasure to welcome Melinda and her husband, Chris, to the event last week. They are clearly loving and devoted parents to sons Elijah, 7, Dillon, 5, and Jasper, 3.

The keynote speaker on the night was Cheryl Koenig, the 2009 Menai electorate and overall New South Wales Woman of the Year. Cheryl acknowledged the inspiring role many women play in promoting a socially just, and thereby cohesive, community. It is her belief that the most crucial investment we can make as individuals is in our shared social wellbeing. She said that it was therefore very reassuring to see a Premier and a Government that also shared this principle. Cheryl reminded us that she had accepted the 2009 award on behalf of all New South Wales women carers for the contribution they make every single day.

In her trademark honest approach, she also explained that only eight weeks after last year's event her world came crashing down when she was diagnosed with a life-threatening blood cancer. The good news is that she is now in remission, but she wanted to highlight the frequency with which she had noticed that carers suffer illness themselves. In fact, her observations are backed up by Australia's only female Nobel Prize winner, Dr Elizabeth Blackburn, who found that people who live with chronic stress, such as those who are the primary caregivers of dementia patients or children with a disability, are more prone to serious disease. I would like to provide the House with a substantial quote from Cheryl's speech that night. Unfortunately it will not be the same as hearing Cheryl deliver these words straight from her heart, but I think by the conclusion everyone will agree that her advice deserves the widest possible audience. She said:

Every experience in life should teach us something. So what life lessons did I learn from 2009? Well, firstly I learnt that when you sit in a chemo ward with toxins roping your veins and stripping away, drip by drip, the very essence of who you once were, it matters little what 'title' you carry or what letters stand before or after your name. What truly matters is, of course, the love of your family and the very precious time you have to spend with them. I also learnt that even though we can't always define our own destiny, as sometimes, when we least expect it, 'life' can get in our way, what we can do is define our own quality of life, and this is now my message at my talks to carers and people with disability. Even when faced with life's hardest challenges, you can choose how you respond to your suffering - you can let it be your undoing, or you can choose to create meaning and purpose from adversity.

As the philosopher Socrates said: "The really valuable life is the considered life." Which signifies to me that we really need to be thoughtful about what we do. As women we play an integral role in shaping our home environments, communities, places of work – including boardrooms and governments – so I encourage you all to really think about what it is you truly value, what you're aiming for, and how your own 'considered life' contributes towards a more humane and caring society.

16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21445

I only wish that I had time today to have every word of Cheryl's speech recorded in Hansard because from where I was sitting I could tell that her speech touched every person there that night. As the Minister for Women said, upon resuming the microphone, no-one was in any doubt as to why Cheryl was last year's overall winner. Later that night I happened to see television coverage of the Academy Awards held the same day. The celebrity-filled audience jumped up to provide a standing ovation to virtually every second award winner. I recalled and regretted that I had earlier resisted an overwhelming urge to do the very same thing as Cheryl finished her address.

Had I done so I believe that every member of our more typically restrained Australian audience would have quickly followed in a fitting tribute. In my capacity as the member for Menai I am fortunate to know Cheryl's whole family. I put on record that my ovation would have honoured also Cheryl's wonderful husband, Robert, and sons Christopher and Jonathan. I join with other members of the House in congratulating every 2010 Woman of the Year nominee and I feel sure that all members join me in wishing the whole Koenig family continued health and happiness.

METROBUS ROUTE 30 SERVICE

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [1.10 p.m.]: This month the State Transit Authority introduced a new Metrobus route 30 service between Mosman, in my electorate, and Enmore, via the Sydney central business district, Sydney University and Newtown. The service has caused absolute chaos and despair among the residents in a very small residential street, which is effectively going to be used as the bus depot for these buses. The State Transit Authority wrote to Mosman Council to advise it of this proposal at the very last minute. There was no consultation with the residents and no survey carried out to determine the demand, and no regard has been given to the chaos that it will cause. Yesterday I met one of the residents, Peter Psaltis, and I have received correspondence from a number of residents. I inform the House of some of their concerns. Katarina Smelikova wrote to me on behalf of the residents of Punch Street, Mosman, and stated:

The NSW State Government has decided to force upon the residents a bus depot for the layover of 85 additional articulated buses per day— that is once the service is fully operational—

(in addition to the existing 30 buses which traverse the street daily); without proper consultation; without ANY research to indicate demand for this service; and without ANY planning to accommodate ANY additional parking of the 22,000 riders who are supposed to ride these buses EVERY DAY.

This is a very crowded part of my electorate. Punch Street gives access to an aged care residential facility and the loss of parking will adversely affect not only residents of the street but also the ambulances, doctors and others who use that part of the street to park when they attend to the residents of the aged care facility. Eight parking spaces will be lost in a very short stretch of road, and it has been indicated that part of a kerb will have to be removed to enable the articulated buses to turn the corner in this narrow road.

A State Transit Authority representative informed residents that the decision to implement the service had come as a directive from the Premier's office and that the authority was simply following orders. Additional questioning of the representative, following a council meeting in February at which the proposal was discussed, revealed that as far as anyone was aware no research had been carried out. The problems associated with the proposal include loss of parking, noise, pollution and the effect on residents' access to their homes—particularly the aged care facility. The irony is that the councillors and the local residents object to the proposal and there appears to be no local demand for this area to be the depot for this service.

The local paper, the Mosman Daily, quotes the general manager of Manly Council as saying that Seaforth would be a great location as a terminus for the service. It seems to me to be a much more sensible proposal for a layover area. If there were a demand for a bus that goes from the northern side of the harbour to Sydney University and beyond then surely it would not start in the electorate of Mosman, it would start further north where more land is available and where there is a site for a depot that Manly Council would welcome. In fact, the general manager, Henry Wong, is quoted in the local newspaper as saying:

We would support any public transport taking passengers from the peninsula to the city. Seaforth is a very good location for this.

On behalf of my residents I will write to the Premier, the Minister for Transport and Roads, Mosman Council and Manly Council and seek a common-sense solution so that we do not have this total disruption to the lives of 21446 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

residents in an already busy part of the suburb of Mosman when a bus depot could be accommodated elsewhere and in an area that would satisfy all demands. The decision appears to have been without any consultation, without any research on possible demand and certainly without any consideration of the impact on the local residents.

CHILEAN EARTHQUAKE

Mr NICK LALICH (Cabramatta) [1.15 p.m.]: I offer my condolences and, I am sure, the condolences of all members of this Parliament, to the people of Chile, as well as the Chilean community in Australia, for the damage and destruction that was caused in Chile by the recent earthquake. On 27 February an 8.8 magnitude earthquake hit the city of Concepcion, which is Chile's second-largest city, some 300 kilometres south-west of the Chilean capital, Santiago, bringing down buildings and causing catastrophic damage, particularly to coastal towns. Many hundreds of people have been killed and hundreds of thousands of homes and beautiful heritage architecture have been damaged or destroyed.

This earthquake has impacted millions of Chilean people. It was one of the most powerful earthquakes in recorded history and caused devastation from the capital right through central Chile to the south. For decades many Chileans have come to Australia seeking refuge and a better way of life. There are some 23,000 Chilean-born Australians who have made their lives in Australia, and many reside in my electorate of Cabramatta. Many people, including myself, have deep and strong ties with the Chilean community in the Cabramatta, Fairfield and Liverpool areas. The Chilean community in my electorate of Cabramatta has been devastated by the news of the quake. Many others from different cultures whose homelands have been similarly struck by tragedy all feel sympathy and compassion for the people in Chile who are currently suffering. My heartfelt condolences go to those families that have lost their loved ones.

Chile must have our urgent support in this, their hour of need. The local Chilean community formed the Colo Colo Sport and Recreation Club under the presidency of Mr Louis Daza to ensure that the Chilean community comes together and passes on their customs, culture and traditions to future generations to give them a sense of home within Australia. The Colo Colo club recently began a support fund to raise funds to send back to Chile. I urge all members to give generously in support of those families and friends who have lost loved ones, who have been injured or who are experiencing hardship. It is not just the Chilean community that has been hit hard but also many other cultures that live in Concepcion and the surrounding areas. The fund is a great initiative and it shows the strength of the Chilean community to come together during this devastating time.

The Rudd Labor Government has provided $l million in emergency assistance and a further $4 million in reconstruction assistance, which will go a long way to meeting the urgent need in Chile for effective support. Positive action plans have been put in place in Fairfield also. A fundraising event at Fairfield showground has been arranged for this Sunday, 21 March, from 10.00 a.m. until 10.00 p.m., and I urge the community, all members of Parliament and staff to get behind this fundraising campaign. Once again, my thoughts and prayers go to those in the Chilean community.

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.19 p.m.]: I join the member for Cabramatta in offering condolences to the Chilean community and to those back home who have lost loved ones as a result of this horrific earthquake. All members are aware of the devastation that was wreaked by the Chilean earthquake. No matter from what cultural background members have come I am sure they have all witnessed the devastating effect on their extended families of earthquakes in other countries. I commend the work of the Chilean community and, in particular, the work of the Chilean Association in organising many fundraisers. Sunday 21 March is a great opportunity for all communities to come together at Fairfield showground to raise money for the Chilean community and to ensure that essential resources go towards assisting those who have been displaced. I thank the member for Cabramatta for bringing this worthy matter to our attention.

BELROSE LANDFILL

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [1.20 p.m.]: I note the Government's recent confirmation that WSN Environmental Solutions, or WSN, a State government corporation, will be sold in whole or in part. The enabling legislation that was introduced last week will soon be debated in Parliament. I have previously spoken about the Belrose site owned by WSN, including past problems and broken promises. Due to a lack of planning for new waste disposal facilities across Sydney, the active life of the waste site at Belrose has been extended repeatedly and commitments breached. Recent negotiations on local issues between WSN and the local community have been more satisfactory. Today I refer to two promises made by WSN to my local community and to others that should be guaranteed by the Government in advance of any sale. 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21447

As the member for Davidson I have previously called on the New South Wales Government formally to extend Garigal National Park by including an environmentally valuable 10-hectare area currently within the boundaries of the WSN site at Belrose. In fact, a motion to that effect is currently before this Parliament. Following prompting by me and by the local community, WSN Environmental Solutions offered to hand over the 10-hectare site for inclusion in an extended national park. This valuable area of native bushland adjacent to Bare Creek should be preserved for all to enjoy in the future. It will also provide an additional refuge and habitat for native animals close to suburbia within the Sydney metropolitan area.

Under previous agreements the WSN-owned land cannot be used for landfill and is preserved in a natural bush state. The Government should facilitate inclusion of this land into Garigal National Park before it sells WSN. Failing that, enforceable controls must be put in place to ensure that agreements are honoured. While the environment Minister's December 2009 response to my written question indicated that the Government was then unaware of the offer from WSN, more recently the National Parks and Wildlife Service area manager has welcomed the proposal and indicated acceptance of the offer. The opportunity to transfer the Belrose site and to formalise the agreement to extend Garigal National Park requires urgent action from the Government.

Relevant processes also include a biobanking application, which will help to fund management of the site in the future. I therefore urge the Government to act quickly, given the foreshadowed sale of WSN Environmental Solutions. For the record, likewise I support the transfer of land near Wakehurst Parkway and Narrabeen Lagoon into Garigal National Park.

On a separate but related matter, I have also endorsed the plan to return some of the land owned by WSN at Belrose for community activities, including mountain biking. Mountain biking is a healthy, outdoor sport that can be enjoyed by individuals, as part of a group, or as a family activity. It should be encouraged but, unfortunately, there is a lack of purpose-built and available facilities across Sydney. Mountain bikers have been further frustrated by a reduction in land deemed suitable for the sport due to concerns over its impact on the environment, including soil erosion.

As the debate continues over the environmental impact of mountain biking in native bushland, the rehabilitated Belrose landfill site offers a welcome win-win solution. I have been working with the community, including mountain bikers, for some time to return the land to community use for passive recreation. Other possible site activities include horse riding and informal recreation. Recently the community advisory committee for the WSN site at Belrose again canvassed the option of opening up parts of the landfill site to mountain bikers from 2016 after the site is closed for landfill and has been rehabilitated. WSN's latest concept plans outline options on how the site could look utilising an estimated $3.49 million from the local Community Enhancement Fund to develop a recreational facility.

This proposal offers the opportunity for a fantastic facility for mountain bikers and a real solution to some of the tensions recently evident over local land use. Having lobbied hard with the local community to return the site to the community, I strongly support the proposal to provide a community facility for mountain biking and other uses at Belrose. I again ask the Government to guarantee current commitments in the context of its proposed disposal of WSN assets. In anticipation of the wider parliamentary debate regarding the sale of WSN assets, I request the Government proactively to indicate how these promises to the Belrose, Davidson and wider communities will be respected.

NEXT OF KIN REGISTER

Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance) [1.25 p.m.]: Recently I was made aware of a New South Wales police program that will bring peace of mind to many elderly people living alone throughout this State. Mrs Betty Lawther, a resident at Nareen Gardens self-care facility, a retirement village in my electorate, contacted my office regarding the Next of Kin Register. The Next of Kin Register, which was evolved in America, enables contact with a person's next of kin after a major incident. A number in someone's phone, such as triple-0, links directly to a contact number through which police officers or others can obtain information relating to that person's health, age and medical requirements. It also provides the contact number of an individual who would be able to assist police.

Betty and other residents at Nareen Gardens were advised that the New South Wales Police Force was introducing a database whereby elderly people could nominate their next of kin, thus enabling police or emergency services to contact an appropriate person in an emergency or in other situations. In January 2004 a similar database was established in the United States of America in response to the double tragedies of the September 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans. We witnessed on 21448 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

television the housing of people in stadiums all over the place—people who were unable to contact their relatives. The problems that were experienced in New Orleans have still not been resolved. This important yet simple technique evolved as a result of those tragedies.

The American Next of Kin Registry is a not-for-profit humanitarian organisation that provides the public with a free proactive service to store emergency contacts, next of kin, and vital medical information that is critical to emergency response agencies. This stored information is accessible via a secure area that is accessible only by emergency public trust agencies that are registered with the organisation, thus protecting the privacy of individuals. The New South Wales Next of Kin Register, which was developed by Holroyd Local Area Command, has been operational over the past 12 months. This program was recognised as a valuable tool that would greatly assist police and emergency services when dealing with elderly people living alone, and it was decided to roll out the program statewide.

Holroyd Local Area Command developed its own database, which is maintained by staff on that command. The Next of Kin Register, which was well received, was promoted within the community by other local area commands. Unfortunately, however, this valuable community asset has still to see the light of day. The delay has been caused by the need to set up a statewide database to store necessary information. An analysis of the age structure of the Central Coast compared to the Sydney statistical division and other regions across the whole of New South Wales and Australia shows that in six of the top 10 postcodes the Central Coast has a larger proportion of elderly people. Those who live on the Central Coast area would be aware of those statistics; I am not telling them something that they do not know.

The Central Coast, with its beautiful beaches, waterways and relaxed lifestyle, is renowned for being a retirement area, and many people choose to retire there. The Central Coast has an abundance of retirement villages, over-50 communities and nursing homes. As many of those retirees have moved away from families and friends, the Next of Kin Register would offer them peace of mind if they knew that police and emergency services had the relevant information to contact the right person in an emergency. Only some months ago I had experience of this when I was driving east through Tumbi Umbi, came out of an intersection and noticed a woman collapsing on the side of the road. After contemplating what had to be done I made an illegal U-turn and pulled up on the side of the road where I had seen the woman collapse. I called the ambulance and after the ambulance arrived I offered assistance.

The ambulance officer then used the patient's mobile phone to obtain information about her. When I questioned what he was doing he said that elderly people frequently ring their closest contact on a regular basis and that by checking the phone for the number most often used usually he was able to establish who should be advised of the medical emergency. When one thinks about it one realises that that makes common sense, but anyone faced with an emergency would not be familiar with such a procedure and would wonder why the ambulance officer was going through the numbers on a mobile phone when there were more important things to do. From my experience this service would be valuable to our community and to the whole of New South Wales.

FLYING FOXES

Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [1.30 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to flying foxes or, as they are commonly called, fruit bats. Members who look out the windows of Parliament House or who walk through the Royal Botanic Gardens and The Domain know that we have many thousands of flying foxes in the local area. It concerns me that the botanic gardens authorities, who are responsible for reducing the number of flying foxes, see relocating them as the only answer. I wonder where they propose to put them. Fruit bats on the North Coast are destroying lychee, blueberry, mango and other fruit crops. They also cause extensive damage to stone fruit crops in metropolitan areas.

A couple of weeks ago it was reported that they had devastated the apple crop at Bilpin. The local orchardists have estimated the damage to be in the order of $3 million or $4 million over a couple of weeks. Therefore, it is concerning when people talk about relocating rather than culling these birds. I presume they are birds—they fly. However, I have heard that they are animals, so I stand to be corrected. There is no question that fruit bats are causing enormous damage to our horticultural sector. An article in the Central Western Daily of 4 March states:

ORCHARDISTS are hoping that a colony of flying foxes which has taken up residence near the Orange CBD will not discover the district's apple crop.

Flying foxes have already caused crop losses of about 50 per cent in the Bilpin growing area. 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21449

With local fruit ripening and due to be picked between now and April, Nashdale grower and NSW Farmers Association horticulture committee chair Peter Darley said an attack would be devastating. Many apples have already been picked; we are talking about the late-ripening crops such as Pink Ladies. The flying foxes have arrived in Orange and they are causing some devastation. That devastation was occurring while Mr Darley was in Sydney talking to authorities, including the Minister for Primary Industries. While he was trying to help other orchardists and horticulturalists the bats were destroying his crop.

The New South Wales Farmers Association and orchardists are calling on the State Government to acknowledge the problem and to allow some culling to occur to reduce the number of flying foxes. I understand that they are a native species, that they are protected and that in some areas they are endangered. However, they are not endangered in the Royal Botanic Gardens and The Domain or where they attack fruit crops. If the Government is not prepared to allow culling under supervision, it should look sympathetically at providing funding—I believe the industry is calling for a 50:50 funding package—to enable producers to net their crops to deter the flying foxes. I have seen the devastation they cause. They do not eat the entire piece of fruit; they simply puncture the fruit, drop it on the ground and then move on to the next piece. Mr Darley stated:

Because of environmental changes these animals are starting to infiltrate the western area.

The article also quotes Guy Gaeta, another orchardist, who stated:

We're going to bed wondering what we're going to find in the morning. It's a really bad feeling.

Mr Gaeta estimated that there were up to 1,000 flying foxes roosting in residential areas near the central business district. It is anticipated that they will leave Orange when winter sets in, but there is also concern that some will acclimatise and come back next spring. I call on the State Government and the Minister for Primary Industries to allow significant culling or to support the farmers by providing funding for netting.

HOMELESSNESS

Mr PAUL GIBSON (Blacktown) [1.35 p.m.]: My contribution today is on a subject on which I have spoken many times in this Chamber—homelessness. I think I have made a speech every year since I have been a member about homelessness not only in this State about also across the nation. I remember once pointing out to members that we did not have to walk far to find homeless people. At the time, each night 16 or 17 people would be sleeping outside the State Library of New South Wales. A Premier long gone from this place—I will not name him—said that the Government had fixed the problem. I went to see what had been done and discovered that the authorities had erected barriers to make it impossible for people to sleep there. That may have fixed the problem for the library, but it did not fix it for the 16 or 17 homeless people who had previously slept there. I wrote to the Prime Minister on 29 May 2009 suggesting that facilities such as army camps could be used to provide temporary housing for those who are down on their luck and who do not have a roof over their head. I received a prompt response, dated 20 June, stating:

The White Paper on Homelessness was launched in December 2008 by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP. Called The Road Home, the White Paper is the Government's plan to reduce homelessness.

The White Paper is supported by a $1.5 billion funding package over four years ...

A few weeks ago, the Federal Minister for Housing, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, the New South Wales Minister for Community Services, the Hon. Linda Burney, and I visited Marist Youth Care at Blacktown and handed over a cheque for $2.1 million to help to address homelessness in western Sydney. Many people find themselves on the street as a result of poverty, family breakdown, domestic violence, mental illness or drug and alcohol addiction. This funding will provide a new support link to long-term housing to break the cycle of homelessness. It will prevent vulnerable families and individuals from becoming homeless in the first place. The funding will also provide multidisciplinary case management, referral and advocacy, living and social skills training, counselling, mediation and conflict resolution and financial and material support. It will also help people to access education, training and employment. This investment will stop people falling into crisis and help them back onto their feet.

I said while we were at Marist Youth Care that I have seen the great work that the organisation does and that it should be complimented. This funding will provide support services linked to social housing for young people aged 15 to 25 who are sleeping rough and who have a history of homelessness. By linking 12- to 18-year-olds with supports like education, training and mediation services the number who find themselves 21450 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

homeless will be reduced. The incidence of homelessness in this country is shameful. In New South Wales at the moment there are about 10,500 people under 25 years of age sleeping on our streets, in parks or wherever they can find shelter, or in crisis accommodation. We say this is the lucky country. However, on any given night in Australia about 105,000 people are homeless. If that is lucky, I would hate to be unlucky.

People came to see me some time ago and told me that they had seen children stealing clothing out of charity-sponsored clothing bins. I said, "People wouldn't do that." Over the next few nights I undertook my own investigation and learned that they were right: I saw kids in the clothing bin. I said to these young people, "Get out of that bin. What are you stealing clothing for? Why don't you come and see me or the local priest and we can help you." They said, "Mister, we're not stealing the clothing at all." I said, "What are you doing?", and they said, "That's where we sleep every night." What a terrible indictment on society and on all of us. We often talk about our problems with health care and transport. We should be talking about people problems. This nation's most serious problem today is looking after homeless people. People are trying to put a roof over their heads so their kids can grow up with a little support and dignity. I hope we do all we can to assist the homeless people in this nation.

BUS ROUTE 544

Mr VICTOR DOMINELLO (Ryde) [1.40 p.m.]: In recent months I have received a vast amount of correspondence from a number of constituents in my electorate regarding the Government's changes to Sydney Buses route 544. The changes are part of an overall review of bus services across the Sydney area and have been met with a large degree of disapproval from bus users, especially the elderly and less mobile members of the community. Route 544, which runs from Macquarie Centre to Auburn, has a high proportion of regular elderly and less mobile passengers.

Prior to the review an hourly direct service operated along Lovell Road, Eastwood, to Eastwood station through some of the smaller and quieter Eastwood backstreets. Following the review this local service was axed. During 2008 and 2009 services in the Eastwood area were reviewed to ensure that they were meeting the travel needs of the local community. According to the Government, this review incorporated patronage checks on the 544 service to gauge passenger numbers. During this review the community was left out of the decision-making process, which has angered Eastwood residents such as Mrs Bronwyn Davies, who frequently used the route prior to the changes. In a letter dated 12 November 2009, Mrs Davies stated:

No one in this area has any knowledge of the so called consultation. Certainly not those in the streets most affected by the new routes. We believe that the decision had already been made by the Government to suit their own purposes.

Unfortunately, lack of consultation by the State Government seems to be a common trend at present in my electorate and across New South Wales; many government agencies fail to listen to the people of New South Wales or work with them to address their concerns. On 11 October 2009, following the conclusion of the government review process, the new route was implemented, which axed the services travelling through the Pickford Avenue-Welby Street-Lansdowne Street precinct of Eastwood. On 12 November 2009, shortly after the changes became effective, Mrs Davies organised a petition from angry community members and included more detailed concerns in an accompanying letter.

On 16 November 2009, in order to seek a resolution and in an attempt to restore the service for regular patrons, I made several representations to the Minister for Transport requesting a further review of the situation in light of the public outcry caused by the changes. Unfortunately, the Minister refused to meet the community demands. On 12 January 2010 I received the Minister's reply to the representations I made on behalf of the affected Eastwood residents. The Minister's response offers little to address the concerns of people such as Mrs Davies, and simply states:

… the comments regarding the alteration of route 544 in the Eastwood area will also be considered as a part of a post implementation review of services.

To the residents of Eastwood, essentially this means that their concerns would be noted but ignored. In response to the correspondence from the Minister, Mrs Davies contacted me by email on 27 January 2010 to outline her dismay at the reply she received. In her email she states that following the alteration to the route:

… some residents now have a direct service which runs every half hour, while the rest of us have none. Although an hourly service was hardly satisfactory, it was better than nothing. 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21451

Although the change has made the route from Macquarie Centre to Eastwood station more direct, bypassing the streets the former route travelled down has caused several problems for many who live in this part of Eastwood. Many people have come to rely on the service and, without it, their ability to undertake activities as simple as shopping is severely impeded. Mrs Davies highlights this alarming concern in her email when she states:

… residents who are elderly and need to shop a few times a week (and carry heavy groceries and can't afford taxis or pay to have the groceries delivered), those with disabilities and those without cars may not use the bus every day in the same way as business people might, however they are just as entitled to public transport as anyone else.

This means that the older members of our community who wish to travel on public transport now must walk to Lovell Road or Balaclava Road to catch other bus services. For many elderly residents, walking this kind of distance is incredibly difficult, especially with groceries or on days with high temperatures. To make matters worse, when they reach the busy roads where the bus services operate they must contend with high traffic volumes when crossing those roads to meet or return from the service. Unfortunately, there is little doubt in the minds of those affected by these changes that this State Labor Government will continue to ignore their pleas and leave local residents without this essential service. I call on the Minister to address the concerns raised by Mrs Davies and numerous other Eastwood residents by immediately conducting the post-implementation review of the 544 service and addressing commuters' concerns as a matter of urgency.

M5 EAST TUNNEL AIR FILTRATION PLANT

Ms CHERIE BURTON (Kogarah) [1.45 p.m.]: Last Tuesday the M5 east tunnel filtration plant was switched on. The Minister for Transport and Roads, the Hon. David Campbell, and I were fortunate to tour the M5 east filtration plant to see its significant world-class technology in operation. Last week marked the beginning of an 18-month trial period. The opening of the plant on Saturday 6 March was an opportunity for the community to take guided tours through the plant. Other countries have filtration plants, but none has recorded quality data to see the effectiveness of the filtration operation. This Government has introduced a world-first filtration plant. Building work commenced on the plant in mid 2008. The project was complex and involved specialist engineering. It is great that the trial has now commenced.

In February 2009 a large road header machine started drilling 280 metres of tunnel between the air filtration plant on the eastern side of Bexley Road at Wolli Avenue and the M5 east westbound tunnel around 500 metres before the tunnel exit. The concrete building was constructed partially underground to minimise the visual impact, and large flood walls were included around the entrances to protect against any floods from Wolli Creek. The filtration equipment arrived by boat from Germany in July 2009 and was installed by a team of overseas specialists. The plant also includes four air-quality monitoring stations to measure the effectiveness of the equipment.

New South Wales is leading the way with this type of technology, and air quality standards for the M5 east tunnel are among the most stringent in the world. Sydney is the first Australian city to install a filtration system of this kind. But that is not all we are doing. The air quality in the M5 east tunnel continues to improve, aided by improved ventilation flows through the installation of an extra 12 jet fans in December 2006, and a video system, which became operational in June 2006, to detect trucks emitting illegal levels of smoke. The Roads and Traffic Authority has referred more than 250 infringements for pollution to the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water.

After the 18-month trial period the Roads and Traffic Authority will assess the cost of installing and operating the filtration systems and their effectiveness in removing pollutants from the tunnel air. We will keep the community informed on the progress of the trial. I thank everybody who visited the official opening of the filtration plant. Many people showed a lot of interest in this important piece of infrastructure for our local community. Also, air quality information from the trial will be posted, as it becomes available, on the Roads and Traffic Authority website. I urge my constituents to keep an eye on the website and also to forward to me any queries about the tunnel.

The Government has in place an air quality improvement plan. All underground tunnels, especially one that is four kilometres long, must enable polluted air to escape expeditiously. We remember the history of the M5 underground tunnel construction and community concern about the proposal for three chimney stack exhausts. I was a member of the M5 east community consultation committee. The community supported overwhelmingly having one chimney stack to remove exhaust fumes. Of course, with a four-kilometre tunnel and all the pollutants contained within it—especially with trucks being diverted from local streets into the 21452 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

tunnel—the polluted tunnel air has difficulty escaping sufficiently. I hope that over the next 18 months the community will see some improvement in the air quality of this tunnel, but we must also continue to explore other initiatives.

The other initiatives include the diesel retrofit program, which aims to reduce emissions from heavy diesel vehicles operating in the Sydney greater metropolitan area by fitting emissions-reducing devices to the exhaust systems of existing trucks. Tougher vehicle emissions and fuel quality standards mean that emissions from cars and trucks will continue to decline in the future and, hopefully, with new vehicle technology we will see less and less pollution. This is a serious area of concern for my constituents. The Government is acting, and we wait to see the outcome of the trial.

NERONG HOUSING DAMAGE FROM ROADWORKS

Mr JOHN TURNER (Myall Lakes) [1.50 p.m.]: The matter I raise today concerns residents who live in Nerong, a small village in my electorate just off the Pacific Highway between Tea Gardens and Bulahdelah. The problems that have been brought to me and to the Federal member for Paterson, Mr Baldwin, concern the Roads and Traffic Authority operations in the upgrade of the Pacific Highway. We are all very happy about the upgrade of the Pacific Highway but unfortunately the Roads and Traffic Authority's good neighbour policy is a sham. The arrogance that the authority has displayed throughout its upgrade of the Pacific Highway over many years is now evident in the village of Nerong.

Roadwork blasting associated with the upgrade has caused structural damage to a number of houses. I do not know how many houses are in Nerong, but I would say that there are probably no more than 30 or 40. I have five examples of where there has been damage to homes, according to residents, following blasting operations. In each instance the Roads and Traffic Authority, and through it the Abigroup and the claims assessors, have said that there is no real damage; it is only a figment of residents' imaginations. A dilapidation survey was conducted before the blasting but the assessors say the damage is nothing to worry about. In some cases they claim it is the result of settling. I find that quite amusing, particularly in Mrs Holmes' case as her house has been there for 25 years!

Mrs Holmes said that kitchen tiles were badly cracked, bathroom tiles were cracked, huge cracks appeared in the brickwork in the hallway, the garage floor and driveway have many cracks, and the drinking water tank was full of grit. Another person reported a similar problem. The assessors, Emerson Australia, seemed to have a standard letter which, in several instances, says that the problems are due to settlement and thus they will not accept the claim. Mrs Holmes is not the only person affected. Mrs Weippeart said that her house suffered damage to two walls in the bathroom, there was brickwork damage to the exterior wall and the water supply from the tank to the pressure pump failed, which meant the pressure pump ran dry, causing the bladder to fail so they had no water for their house. She had to employ a plumber to run a temporary line to her house, and she is still waiting to hear back from the Abigroup through its claims assessors, Emersons.

Mr and Mrs Corry have also contacted me with the same issues—cracks in their house and other problems. They kept a detailed log of everything they did to try to get Abigroup, Emersons Australia, the claims assessors, or the Roads and Traffic Authority to do something about it. They made 10 contacts with the Abigroup, 12 contacts with Emersons and three contacts with the Roads and Traffic Authority. They have had no success in relation to their claim regarding the cracks and other problems, such as balcony eaves and ceiling sheets moving at the plastic joint strips and cracks under the window of the second bedroom. The claim is still in abeyance and the Corrys also received a standard letter from Emersons referring to the "… nature of the construction of your premises and of the site on which it is constructed"—in other words, it is blaming settlement again.

Mr and Mrs Yarnton also said that they had several cracked cornices and unsightly cracks have appeared in the driveway. On many occasions while blasting occurred they were not required to evacuate their home so they heard the trembling and rippling sounds going through their roof iron. They also received a letter from Emersons saying there was only general movement and settlement. This is a ridiculous assertion by the Roads and Traffic Authority, Emersons and Abigroup. These residents are saying there are problems with their houses that were not there before the blasting—ipso facto the blasting caused the problems. It is not rocket science.

This episode again reveals the arrogance of the Roads and Traffic Authority, which is saying, "To hell with you, we are not going to recognise your claim; we will outwait you and outmuscle you"—as it has done so 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21453

many times before. I hark back to Nabiac, where the authority was negotiating to buy properties. It reduced people to quivering messes. Ladies were crying in my office and saying that the Roads and Traffic Authority had said that if they came to see me it would withdraw the offer—which, at that stage, was miserly. That is the arrogance that people are putting up with. I ask the Minister to address these real issues. People have documented the problems and they must be fixed.

MARINE RESCUE NSW, PORT MACQUARIE

Mr PETER BESSELING (Port Macquarie) [1.55 p.m.]: I highlight today the plight of one of our area's most successful and competent volunteer rescue organisations, the Port Macquarie group of the newly named Marine Rescue NSW. Along with its counterparts in Camden Haven and Harrington, and alongside the many State Emergency Service, Rural Fire Service and other volunteer service organisations, it plays a valuable role in our community offering both first response and support to our professional emergency services, to the eternal benefit and gratitude of our community.

Marine Rescue NSW is a volunteer organisation but many people would be unaware that the members of our former sea rescue, coastal patrol and coast guard organisations that now make up Marine Rescue NSW were not getting paid for their time and effort. Hopefully, the recent changes to uniforms and logos as a result of all groups coming under the Marine Rescue NSW banner will bring about consistency in the approach to rescue operations up and down our New South Wales coastline. However, it will only add further to the public perception that the group is a full-time, professional outfit. Like all volunteer organisations, Port Macquarie Marine Rescue NSW constantly seeks community support in order to provide a very well-run service. Over the past nine years the Hastings community has provided $548,529 in financial and in-kind donations, just for capital works.

In July last year the sea rescue group sought funding from the New South Wales Government for $118,000 to replace its 13-year-old primary response vessel, a category I rigid inflatable boat, with a category II rigid inflatable boat after receiving the necessary accreditation from the State Rescue Board. The past seven months have seen the group raise $44,000 towards the cost of the replacement, leaving an outstanding amount of $74,000. The executive committee has advised me that it has had to borrow the balance, because a functioning, capable primary response vessel is critically important to the marine rescue group, and to the countless thousands of boating enthusiasts who visit the Hastings River and its estuaries, cross the challenging Hastings River bar, or who move along the New South Wales coastline each year.

The community's $44,000 contribution is in addition to the $70,000 raised annually to cover the group's operating costs, and the $270,000 raised to purchase its 10-metre Steber, Rescue One, back in 1990. The group's executive committee has advised me that its request for funding through the New South Wales Marine Rescue Commissioner, Glenn Finness, has been denied. For the ongoing benefit of safer, better boating along our coastline, the funding of dedicated marine rescue equipment needs to be addressed in a sustainable manner so that volunteer organisations across the State are not required to go cap in hand on each occasion to the Government to argue their case in an environment that is often fraught with political piracy.

Aside from the direct need for funding for this much-needed piece of capital equipment, NSW Maritime places further strain on local marine rescue groups and their communities by charging the full cost of the initial survey back to the volunteers, which, in the case of Port Macquarie's category II rigid inflatable boat, sets them back another $8,000 in fundraising. Add to this a charge of 50 per cent of each successive survey—a cost that must be accounted for on an annual basis—and volunteer groups are feeling unsupported by NSW Maritime and what can only be considered its mean-spirited penny pinching. It is akin to asking the Rural Fire Service to stump up for the cost of registering its trucks and then charging it 50 per cent of the registration every year thereafter for the privilege of serving the community.

Non-profit organisations that serve their communities need to be supported by government, and should be seen to be supported by government. It is simply not good enough to ask members of volunteer organisations to give up their time, effort and often to risk their own lives for the benefit of others, and then petty-mindedly charge them governmental bureaucratic fees.

I urge the Minister for Ports and Waterways, who is present in the Chamber, to implement measures that relieve all Marine Rescue NSW groups of fees and charges associated with registering their vessels and to ensure the provision of ongoing funding to support future capital equipment purchases. In the past six months, 21454 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

the Port Macquarie Marine Rescue has responded to 63 incidents involving 223 boat owners, crew and passengers. In total the volunteers have accrued 413 hours on rescues, and mostly with great success. They deserve the full support of government.

Mr PAUL MCLEAY (Heathcote—Minister for Ports and Waterways, and Minister for the Illawarra) [2.00 p.m.]: I thank the member for Port Macquarie for discussing the important issue of financing volunteer rescue organisations such as Marine Rescue NSW, particularly the Port Macquarie Volunteer Marine Rescue Service, its members, its very dedicated volunteers and its passionate advocates, including the member for Port Macquarie. Marine Rescue NSW and its predecessor organisations benefited, and continue to benefit, from a series of regulatory concessions which include a 100 per cent waiver of vessel registration fees, a 50 per cent discount on periodic vessel survey fees not including the first one, eligibility for free mooring licences where required, and a 100 per cent waiver on boat operator licence fees.

In addition to these broad concessions, the Government provides regular annual funding to Marine Rescue NSW, which for the 2009-10 financial year is $1.39 million. In July 2009, the Government made a $3 million contribution in transition and start-up funding to assist in establishing the new organisation. The Government continually is looking at new ways in which it can assist volunteer rescue organisations throughout the State while preserving the voluntary nature of their endeavours and the community involvement in their funding. I look forward to working with the member for Port Macquarie in the future to support the volunteers of Marine Rescue NSW.

EQUINE DENTISTRY

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [2.01 p.m.]: I wonder how many members of Parliament would be aware that there are currently no nationally accredited courses delivering world's best practice equine dentistry training in Australia? Recently I travelled to the property "Thornhill" at Ghoolendaadi, which is 30 kilometres from Gunnedah, to meet Ian Wharton, the Principal of the College of Equine Dentistry Australia. I had an opportunity to inspect the facilities and learn about the training provided, and I must say that I was most impressed with what I saw. Having talked to Ian and some of his students, I left convinced of the need for such a program as it provides many opportunities for students, and many benefits for animal welfare within the equine industry.

Ian became involved in equine dentistry in 1980 in North Queensland, and in the early 1990s he began working on other people's horses. In 1998 Ian attended the Academy of Equine Dentistry in Idaho in the United States of America where he undertook a certification course. He then worked with an equine dentist in California while also starting to do work for his own private clients. Ian attended the equine full body anatomy course at the academy, passing all of the requirements to become a certified equine dentist. At that time, the academy was training students from some 45 countries, including veterinarians. Idaho was known throughout the world's horse industry as the place to go for equine dental education, with the Idaho Board of Education recognising the academy's qualifications. Ian continued through the program, achieving the level of Advanced Certified Equine Dentist and in November 2002 became a Master Equine Dentist. Ian taught at the academy from 2000 to 2004. This type of training is typical of many equine dentists who have travelled extensively around the world to be trained and assessed.

Since Ian commenced his College of Equine Dentistry near Gunnedah, 110 students from Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, England, the Netherlands, and Italy have undertaken study at the facility. There is a long history to equine dentistry. Prior to World War II veterinarians and non-veterinarians alike were performing many of the procedures that are today considered to be whole-of-mouth techniques. Since then many of the dentistry and other horsemanship skills have been lost. Until recently the veterinary profession has not focused on equine dentistry, with only a few hours still currently allocated in a degree of veterinary surgery. Equine dentistry on a horse that is not sedated can be a physically demanding and often dangerous job that the veterinary industry has largely been happy to leave to the so-called layperson. It has been these horsemen and women—people like Ian Wharton—who have researched lost skills and developed techniques, tools, skills and training to increase equine welfare by improving the horse's eating, digestion, comfort and performance.

The Australasian Equine Dentistry Association represents practitioners such as Ian and is striving to enhance the welfare of all horses by developing national accreditation, including competency-based training for equine dental providers. The development of national accreditation and an Australian quality training 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21455

framework for competency-based training of equine dental providers will allow registered training organisations to deliver nationally accredited training while allowing a horse owner to select a service provider, based upon training and experience. It also allows for freedom of competition in the delivery of services within Australia.

In 2006, the association was advised by the Department of Primary Industries [DPI] to develop a set of national competencies that would lead to a qualification allowing professional dentists to practise all aspects of modern dentistry, including some procedures that have been considered "restricted acts of veterinary medicine". An equine dental industry reference group has been formed. Every dental association in Australia was invited to work in consultation with the Federal industry council, Agri-food Skills Australia. A set of competencies covering both basic dentistry and more advanced whole-of-mouth procedures has resulted.

However, as a result of intervention by the Australian Veterinary Association, the listing of these competencies for public comment has unfortunately been delayed. The Australasian Association for Equine Dentistry Incorporated is calling on the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries to encourage the development of a national qualification and to actively support the listing of competencies on the Agri-food website for public comment. It would be a good thing for the equine industry as well as for animal welfare if the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries could raise the concept of national accreditation at the ministerial council, with a view to further addressing the matter at Council of Australian Governments level.

All States and Territories should be encouraged to support a national horse dentistry qualification. As part of the process, an inquiry should be conducted into why the Australian Veterinary Association continues to disrupt any progress on developing a national training and assessment standard for equine dentistry. This issue needs to be resolved urgently for the welfare of horses and to give owners choice as well as a fair go. I encourage the Minister for Primary Industries to make representations to the Federal Minister for Education to find out why the listing of equine dentistry competencies is being delayed, and to discover what can be done to urgently expedite this matter.

Private members' statements concluded.

[The Assistant-Speaker (Mr Grant McBride) left the chair at 2.06 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of members of the Victorian Road Safety Committee: David Koch, John Eren, Bill Tilley, Ian Trezise and Paul Weller.

MINISTER FOR POLICE COMMENTS

The SPEAKER: For the benefit of the House, I wish to clarify the events that took place on last Thursday during and immediately after question time. During an answer to a question from the member for Camden, the Minister for Police referred to "the other side of the House" in terms that members of the Opposition found offensive. When challenged, the Minister, as he is entitled to do, chose not to withdraw the remark. There have been many Speakers' rulings, the most recent by Speaker Kelly in 1976, that expressions which may be unparliamentary when applied to individuals are not always so considered when applied to a whole party. When alleged aspersions are cast upon a group of members the Chair does not have a solution other than to suggest that a notice of motion be given for a substantive motion, which may be debated.

In the case of the member for Murray-Darling, who was mentioned by the Minister specifically, I did suggest at the time that as he had a case to argue that he had been misrepresented by the Minister, he could make a personal explanation at the conclusion of question time, which he did. That did not mean that every Opposition member, not so referred to, could assert a similar right to make a personal explanation as this would in effect be debating the matter, which is not permitted under the standing orders. However, in view of the general disquiet on the Opposition side, I did agree, on this occasion, to giving my leave for personal explanations to be made by Opposition office holders. This offer was taken up.

The member for Terrigal also raised the operation of Standing Order 73 and asserted that I had authority under this standing order to direct the withdrawal of an alleged personal reflection on a member of the other place. Standing Order 74 does indeed state that the Chair may intervene to call a member to order for using disorderly words but there is no power in the Chair to order the withdrawal of those words. With the 21456 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

intention of the sittings this week proceeding with a better level of decorum than was evident towards the end of last week, I would invite the Minister for Police to reconsider the approach that he took last week to the issue raised.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY, by leave: In light of the concerns that you have just expressed, I withdraw the statement.

MINISTRY

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I inform the House that on 11 March 2010 Her Excellency the Governor appointed the Hon. Ian Michael Macdonald, MLC, as Minister for Major Events.

REPRESENTATION OF MINISTER IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I inform the House that the Minister for the State Plan and Minister for Community Services will represent the Minister for Major Events in the Legislative Assembly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices of Motions

Government Business Notices of Motions (for Bills) given.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Routine of Business

[During the giving of notices of motions to be accorded priority.]

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Bathurst to order. Government members will come to order. I call the member for East Hills to order. I call the member for Blacktown to order.

QUESTION TIME ______

[Question time commenced at 2.23 p.m.]

WESTERN SYDNEY TRAIN SERVICES

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that Penrith rail commuters currently put up with fewer, more overcrowded services than they did six years ago—

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Penrith to order. I call the member for Parramatta to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I refuse to stare at you, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Penrith to order for the second time.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Will the Premier explain why it now takes seven minutes longer to get from Penrith to the Sydney central business district than it did in 2004 or is going backwards the Premier's new direction?

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would not want to raise transport again lest we revisit the airport rail link, the $800 million lost to this State—

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will come to order.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: A promise was made by his Minister—somewhere in the bowels of government there must be a pink piece of paper with Mr O'Farrell's signature on it advising his Minister to go 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21457

out there and promise that this airport rail link would come at no cost to the taxpayer. Well, $800 million later we know the truth about the airport rail link. Our Metropolitan Transport Plan, our $50 billion fully funded transport plan—

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Fully funded?

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Fully funded, that is right, member for Murrumbidgee. That is exactly right, $50 billion, the Western Express, investing in our western suburbs.

[Interruption]

As the member for Penrith called out and asked, we want to see the Opposition backing public transport for western Sydney.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: We want to see the Opposition backing a Western Express line.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. He will not debate the matter across the Chamber.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: We would welcome any idea to come out of the Opposition on transport or on anything else.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murrumbidgee to order.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: We are not the only people who would like to see the Opposition produce just one idea.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for South Coast to order.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: We all know what Tony Abbott said last week.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of The Nationals to order.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Tony Abbott said, "We won't win the election by adopting a small target." Who has the small target strategy? Barry O'Farrell, that is right.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: Standing Order 129. The question is simple, even for the Premier. The question is: Why does it now take seven minutes longer to get from Penrith to the city than it did six years ago?

The SPEAKER: Order! I will hear further from the Premier.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: We would welcome the Opposition to back the Western Express.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call member for Willoughby to order.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: We would welcome any idea, policy or any thing. We are not the only people who would welcome an idea from the Opposition. No less than the editorial of that paper of record, the Sydney Morning Herald on 28 January 2010, stated:

The Opposition under Barry O'Farrell is continuing to withhold from the electorate any idea of how it will change the development and management of this State.

No policy ideas! To quote from another paper of record, the Sunday Telegraph, Peter van Onselen:

"Make no mistake, O'Farrell is acting like a lightweight."

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: Standing Order 129, relevance. The question is simple. Mr Speaker, you asked at the beginning of this session that the standards be improved. Can we please try to get an answer out of the Government? 21458 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Premier of the question before the House.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: We are proud of a rail service that is 96 per cent on-time running, benchmarked against international benchmarking of 92 per cent on-time running, and running better than Melbourne's system. We are proud of that system. When it comes to editorial comment provided by our major newspapers on the Leader of the Opposition I might save the rest of it for a later time.

FEDERAL HEALTH PLAN

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO: My question is addressed to the Premier. Will the Premier update the House on the Government's response to the Federal Government's proposed health reforms?

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I thank the member for Penrith for her question and acknowledge her strong support for increased transport services and increased health services for the people of western Sydney. Since this House last met I have had the opportunity to speak directly with the Prime Minister and, importantly, directly with our clinicians, doctors and nurses, and people who use our health system.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Bega to order.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: This is how my Government approaches an historic opportunity to improve health services in our communities. We welcome the potential, but we want to ensure that New South Wales communities will be protected in the detail of the plan. How will we do this? We will do it by asking communities for their input. We have responded rapidly to the Prime Minister's timeline with a consultation plan, which includes a discussion paper on the implications of the reforms, a working seminar on New South Wales' response and a public submissions process via a dedicated web forum. That forum is now live and anyone in New South Wales can read the discussion paper as well as other background information and have a say before the Council of Australian Governments meeting.

We have had a productive seminar that provided real focal points for our discussions with the Federal Government, including ensuring seamless care for patients—the right care at the right time in the right place; ensuring that the reform is not just for the system but, indeed, for the patient; setting standards that drive improvements that make a difference to our communities; and supporting equitable access for all, especially in rural and regional areas. The last point is critical for New South Wales. Rural and remote hospitals have unavoidably higher costs because they have a low population base, yet they still need to deliver care. Any price-per-service funding model must take these issues into account. Country Labor has made strong representations on rural and regional hospitals. These hospitals must be protected in these reforms. Hospitals in New South Wales must be fair and accessible.

I put on record my sincere thanks to the doctors, nurses, carers and patient representatives who came on short notice—many over long distances—to provide their experience and intelligence to yesterday's seminar, which is testament to the importance of this opportunity for reform and the integrity of those who attended. Would such integrity be displayed by the members opposite? When the seminar finished at 1.00 p.m. yesterday it took only three minutes for the member for North Shore to hit ABC Radio and write off the seminar as a farce. Shame!

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for North Shore will come to order. Government members will come to order.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: It took her three minutes to categorically dismiss the work of dedicated professionals and carers from around New South Wales.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for North Shore to order.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: She dismissed these professionals—the doctors, nurses, clinicians and carers—as a farce. She dismissed these experts, national leaders and people of national stature, such as Dr Ian Kamerman.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Barwon to order.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I hope that the member for Barwon is not joining in this farce. We welcomed people such as Dr Ian Kamerman, the President of the Rural Doctors Association of New South 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21459

Wales, who represented 400 doctors from around this State; Dr Antonio Penna, the Chief Executive of Westmead Children's Hospital, which cares for more than 70,000 sick children and their families each year; and Ms Sam Faithful, the President of the Nursing and Midwifery Society of New South Wales, whose members deliver 90,000 new lives in this State each year. Clearly, such people would not waste their time and they are not a farce. However, the member for North Shore would have us believe that.

I would have thought that the member for North Shore would be a little more circumspect on the subject of farces. After all, she stood in this House and robustly defended the farce that we know as the Port Macquarie hospital debacle. That was a farce, if there ever was one—or perhaps it might be called a black comedy. The former Coalition Government sold a public hospital into private ownership. That farce would have left the people in the electorate of the member for Port Macquarie with no hospital at all. That is a farce from which this Government had to rescue the families of Port Macquarie by buying back the hospital and its land, which the former Coalition Government sold for $1,000.

Members may recall that the Auditor-General described the Port Macquarie farce as "paying for a hospital twice, and then giving it away". On 23 November 1995 the member for North Sydney stood in this House and proudly defended the proposal, saying that there was "no better way" to provide health services to the people of Port Macquarie. Shame! There is a better way, and it is to work in partnership with the Commonwealth Government, which is willing to address health and hospital reform. There is a better way to represent the interests of communities.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Epping to order. I call the member for North Shore to order for the second time.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: There is a better way to work with the people of this State to deliver better health care, and that is what this Government will pursue.

BUNDARRA DROUGHT ASSISTANCE

Mr ANDREW STONER: Given the Bundarra region in the Northern Tablelands—

Mr Paul Gibson: Who is your question to?

Mr ANDREW STONER: It is to the Premier. She has been there. She knows all about this.

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order. I call the member for Bankstown to order. The Leader of The Nationals will ask his question.

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is to the Premier.

[Interruption]

Didn't you put this in your brochure?

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Bathurst to order for the second time. The Leader of The Nationals will ask his question.

Mr ANDREW STONER: The Premier is asking to see the photo. The Bundarra region in the State's Northern Tablelands has been knocked back for the exceptional circumstances drought relief for which the Premier claimed she would lobby the Federal Government during her drought photo tour, saying, "If Bundarra does not qualify for EC, who does?" Is this yet another example of the Premier's vacuous lights, camera, no action premiership?

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I ask the Leader of The Nationals to hold up the photo for the cameras. That is not a photo of Bundarra—it is a photo of Wyangala Dam!

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. I was going to make that observation myself!

HOSPITAL QUALITY AND SAFETY

Mr ROBERT FUROLO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. How is the Government improving quality and safety in New South Wales hospitals? 21460 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: As members know, health reform is a subject of much debate and discussion at the moment. The Prime Minister has released his plan for national health reform and, as the Premier has outlined, New South Wales is committed to working with the Federal Government to take forward health reform in the best interests of our communities. In the meantime, while we are focused on the national debate around health reform, we also continue to implement reforms to strengthen and improve the health system in New South Wales. We will ensure that we put patients at the centre of everything we do—as one of the participants, Professor Cliff Hughes, described it yesterday, patient-based care. That is our aim with everything we do in the New South Wales health system. The New South Wales Government is committed to improving patient outcomes and to delivering high-quality health care.

Peter Garling in his comprehensive review of the acute care system identified that the Clinical Excellence Commission and the Agency for Clinical Innovation were two of the four pillars of reform of the public hospital system. The Government has just recently announced a new joint board for the Agency for Clinical Innovation and the Clinical Excellence Commission. This follows the announcement at the end of last year that Professor Carol Pollock, another participant in yesterday's seminar, had been appointed chair of the board. The Clinical Excellence Commission is central to our efforts to improve patient safety, particularly its management of Australia's largest incident reporting scheme. The collection of incident reporting and the dissemination of that information are on a level with world's best practice. Five years ago New South Wales was the first State in the country to establish a body such as the Clinical Excellence Commission, which improves transparency in the health system.

The more recently established Agency for Clinical Innovation will complement the Clinical Excellence Commission and will help drive reform and innovation across the system. The Agency for Clinical Innovation uses the expertise of the many clinical networks that we have to develop evidence-based standards and models of care for the treatment of common conditions with high morbidity rates—such as heart attacks, diabetes, stroke and lung disease. By analysing the data across the system right down to the hospital level, the Agency for Clinical Innovation can identify differences in the way patients with the same conditions are treated and the outcomes for those patients. The data, which is then shared with clinicians, is used to develop best practice models of care to treat various conditions. The Agency for Clinical Innovation supports the area health services in the implementation of these models of care.

This is all about homing in on the best, safest and most cost-effective ways to deliver care for patients and then promoting these models throughout the public system. This is great for the health system but it is also very good for patient outcomes. I will share a few examples with members. The introduction of models of care has contributed to a reduction in the time spent in hospital for a hip replacement from about 12 days in 1994-95 to just under seven days in 2007-08. With regard to a knee replacement, the time taken has gone from nearly 13 days in 1994-95 to about seven days in 2007-08. With regard to cardiac disorders, the length of stay has been halved. As I said, this is good for our health system but it is good for patients as well. It means they spend less time in hospitals and get back to their families more quickly and recover from these serious disorders.

The work of the Agency for Clinical Innovation will build on these achievements. It will make sure that no matter where a patient enters the health system he or she can expect consistent and high standards of care. This echoes the objectives for standardised high-quality care that we have heard from the Commonwealth in relation to national standards. We can be proud that in New South Wales we are leading the way. The first such body in Australia was the Agency for Clinical Innovation, and it is yet another example of how the New South Wales Government recognises the importance of making patients the centre of our efforts to improve our health system.

TRANSPORT PLAN

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Roads. Given the Minister's transport blueprint is dependent on Federal funding, his Infrastructure Australia submissions have been incompetent and the Prime Minister thinks this Government is hopeless, why will the Minister not admit the blueprint is going the way of the Rozelle metro—lines on a map that will never be delivered?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The Opposition is wrong again. We just heard the Leader of The Nationals get it absolutely wrong. He brought a prop into the Chamber and got it wrong. Once again, not only is the 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21461

Opposition whingeing, whining and complaining but also the shadow Minister for Transport has got it wrong. The Government's Metropolitan Transport Plan—$50 billion worth of transport infrastructure over 10 years—is fully funded.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 130. If the Minister says the plan is fully funded, will he please give us the details?

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee has not referred to the correct standing order.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: This plan is fully funded. The shadow Minister is waving around a newspaper report, which in fact builds on this. I said in a public forum last week, and it was reported in the paper, that if the Federal Government came along with additional money we would carry out additional projects.

NORTH-WEST NEW SOUTH WALES FLOODS

Mr KERRY HICKEY: My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Will the Minister update the House on the work of New South Wales emergency services in assisting communities in north-west New South Wales affected by floods?

Mr STEVE WHAN: I thank the member for his question and his continuing interest in the work of our emergency services. As Parliament sits today, locals in the State's north-west are working with emergency services bracing for major flooding as the floodwaters from Queensland work their way down through our river systems. Flood warnings have been issued for the Culgoa, Bokhara, Birrie, Narran, Warrego, Paroo and Darling rivers and the communities that surround them. For the benefit of the Leader of The Nationals, they are a lot closer to Bundarra than they are to Wyangala.

Extensive community consultation and planning for evacuations has been undertaken as the floodwaters from Queensland impact on New South Wales, with peaks expected on several of these rivers from midweek through until early May 2010. The threat from these floodwaters is very real and evacuation orders have been issued for the Goodooga Reserve community, population about 20, and the Weilmoringle community, population 55, which are expected to be isolated this week. A community meeting is being held today to further discuss isolation issues.

I acknowledge the hard work of volunteers from the Brewarrina State Emergency Service [SES] unit, which has conducted a doorknock in these communities to inform people of the evacuation order, with the support of representatives from Aboriginal Affairs NSW. During times of flood the use of aircraft is critical, and air bases are operational at Bourke and Walgett. A total of six aircraft are already in use assisting with the movement of emergency personnel and reconnaissance. Increased numbers of their resources for Walgett are planned for tomorrow. Industry and Investment NSW will provide support for livestock and animal services using the resources based at Bourke.

Our agencies are working well with each other through the local emergency management committees, ensuring a coordinated approach to the threat of these floods. That is why it is important for this Parliament to acknowledge the difficult work being done for regional communities under difficult circumstances. Anyone requiring assistance in floods should call the SES on 132 500. For life threatening emergencies, as always, 000 is the number to call. I can assure the people of north-west New South Wales that this Government is working hard to support them every step of the way. Today the State Emergency Recovery Controller is in the region to undertake advanced planning for recovery after the floods have gone.

As Minister for Emergency Services I acknowledge the importance of the Government working closely on the ground with communities and with local members. In this case the Government has been working in a number of areas with the member for Barwon and with local mayors to ensure that it responds as best it can to the special needs of affected communities. This morning I am sure that the member for Barwon was as surprised as I was to hear the shadow Minister providing supposedly expert advice for residents about what to do in the case of a flood. Once again, I emphasise that people should take advice from official sources, or at least from those involved in the process who have been briefed.

Local members are always willing to work positively with the SES. It is a pity that only a couple of weeks ago the shadow Minister in the upper House refused to vote on a motion acknowledging the efforts of the SES in helping people in northern New South Wales. The shadow Minister refused to debate the motion in the 21462 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

upper House, which is an indictment of him. This issue is serious as communities in north-western New South Wales are facing long periods of isolation. These floods are moving slowly, we have had the advantage of seeing them coming, and we have done a lot of planning. However, those communities will be faced with some big challenges. Some communities and rural properties are already isolated and over the coming weeks more will become isolated. I again acknowledge the great efforts of all emergency service personnel and communities in the north-west that are working to help local residents.

PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE

Mr STEVE CANSDELL: I direct my question to the Premier. How can she justify the monstrous motor tax that is being charged statewide but that is being spent only in Sydney when three people have died on the Pacific Highway in the Clarence region alone in the 40 days since she received, and has now snubbed, an invitation from four North Coast mayors to inspect this notorious stretch of the highway?

[Interruption]

How does the Premier—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Clarence will resume his seat. The Premier has the call.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Any fatality on our roads is a tragedy. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who have died on our roads. A number of things can be done to reduce the number of fatalities. Engineering works, law enforcement and safety education all play a role in reducing the number of crashes.

Mr Steve Cansdell: Point of order. My point of order relates to relevance under Standing Order 129. I asked the Premier about a serious incident.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Clarence is out of order.

Mr Steve Cansdell: I asked about a serious incident.

The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. I call the member for Clarence to order.

Mr Steve Cansdell: Mr Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Clarence to order for the second time.

Mr Steve Cansdell: The four mayors included the mayors of Richmond Valley, Clarence, Coffs Harbour—

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Clarence to order for the third time. He is on his final warning. The member for Parramatta will come to order. The question asked by the member for Clarence was appropriate and within the standing orders. He will not conduct himself in such a way. The Premier has call.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: That is why $234 million was allocated for road safety programs and road safety campaigns during the 2009-10 financial year. Many millions more have been committed to road upgrades and to maintenance programs, which will also improve road safety. I am advised that recently a P-plate driver who was overtaking a semitrailer on a bend collided head-on with a second car and the passenger and the driver of that second car were killed. This crash took place 70 kilometres north of Grafton within the project area of the Devils Pulpit upgrade.

Unfortunately, that first crash was followed by a second crash on Friday evening when a car travelling about 22 kilometres north of Kempsey lost control during heavy rain and collided with an oncoming car. Tragically, one person was killed. My thoughts go out to the families and friends of those people who lost their lives in these unfortunate circumstances. The Government, with the support of the Rudd Labor Government, will continue to work as hard as possible to upgrade the Pacific Highway. A total of $3.6 billion will be invested—

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Clarence that he is on three calls to order. He is on his final warning. The Premier has the call. 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21463

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: As I was saying, a total of $3.6 billion will be invested in the Pacific Highway over five years to 2012. The Roads and Traffic Authority will continue to give priority to those sections of the highway that represent the greatest safety risk. Again, I express condolence to the families of those who have been killed on our roads. Our thoughts go out to them.

JOBS SUPPORT

Mr MATT BROWN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Rural Affairs. How is the Government supporting jobs across New South Wales?

Mr STEVE WHAN: Last week we heard more good news for the New South Wales economy. New South Wales was the only State to record a fall in unemployment. The unemployment rate for New South Wales for the month of February 2010 was 5.4 per cent—a decrease of 0.2 per cent compared to the month of January, which is really good news for people and businesses in New South Wales. Today I can reveal a bit of bad news for the New South Wales economy if the Coalition were ever to come into office. Today the secret scheme of the Leader of the Opposition to send New South Wales jobs overseas was revealed by the Australian. I quote from Fran Foo's story on page 30 of today's Australian, which states:

The NSW opposition would increase IT outsourcing activities—

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance under Standing Order 129. Question time is about to get really absurd. The question had nothing to do with some hypotheses put forward by the Minister about what might happen in the future; it is about what the Government is doing for jobs in rural New South Wales. Perhaps the Minister will refer to—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member will Murrumbidgee will resume his seat. The question, which was in general terms, related to employment in New South Wales. I will hear further from the Minister.

Mr STEVE WHAN: Speaking of absurd, do members remember the prop that the member for Murrumbidgee handed up earlier to the Leader of the Opposition? Do members think that was a deliberate attempt at sabotage? I think it might have been a deliberate attempt at sabotage. As I was saying, today's article in the Australian states:

The NSW opposition would increase IT outsourcing activities ...

Financial management spokesman Greg Pearce said the Coalition was open to the idea of outsourcing.

The article goes on to state—

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: If Government members want absurdity—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Adrian Piccoli: My point of order relates to relevance under Standing Order 129.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on this issue.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: The question related to regional New South Wales. Stop trying to cover for these people, Mr Speaker. Stop trying to cover for the Government.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Murrumbidgee will resume his seat. The member will not reflect on the Chair. That is inappropriate.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Mr Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Order! I will not debate the matter with the member for Murrumbidgee. He will resume his seat. He will not reflect on the Chair. That is inappropriate and unparliamentary. I have ruled in the past that when a question is of a general nature a Government member or an Opposition member may reflect on Government or Opposition policy. My ruling today is entirely consistent with those earlier rulings.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Mr Speaker— 21464 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

The SPEAKER: Order! I will not debate the matter with the member for Murrumbidgee. I have ruled on the matter. The Minister has the call.

Mr STEVE WHAN: Goodness gracious! All I am trying to do is to reveal a bit of Opposition policy, as Opposition members never tell us about any of their policies. The article exposes in black and white the secret scheme of the Leader of the Opposition to sack workers from New South Wales and to send them overseas. I quote directly from the statement of the Hon. Greg Pearce, the Opposition spokesperson on information technology, who said:

On a general plane, clearly we've got to do more outsourcing. Offshoring raises all sorts of political concerns—

The Hon. Greg Pearce acknowledges that.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance under Standing Order 129. Mr Speaker, I know that you extend latitude, but this question was about jobs in regional New South Wales. I have not heard the word "regional" used at all. You cannot keep covering for these people.

The SPEAKER: Order! If the member for Murrumbidgee says that one more time, I will have him ejected from the House. The Minister is aware of the question before the House. I will listen carefully to his answer. The member may not like the answer, but I extend a degree of latitude to both sides of the House.

Mr STEVE WHAN: No wonder they are sensitive. It is amazing that the member for Murrumbidgee does not seem to think there are any information technology [IT] jobs in rural New South Wales. Clearly, there may not be under the Coalition. I continue quoting the article:

Offshoring raises all sorts of political concerns— we probably all would agree with that, but here is the big "but"—

but I don't think that the way NSW is operating is either efficient or productive or in the interest of anybody.

In other words, the Opposition's information technology spokesperson is saying, "Look, we know people don't like you offshoring IT jobs to other countries but we're willing to look at it. We're willing to do it." This is the official policy as stated by the Opposition spokesperson on this issue. The Leader of the Opposition is giving us a bit of a stage laugh at the moment. Maybe he is trying to disown this policy. It makes me wonder why I have to call him the Leader of the Opposition since he does not seem to be leading anybody in the upper House if they can say—

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 129. You do give latitude, Mr Speaker, but really this is becoming more than a joke.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will direct the Minister to the question before the House.

Mr STEVE WHAN: Back to the good news on our economy: I am pleased to say that since March 2009 more than 66,000 additional jobs have been created in New South Wales. On a trend basis, employment has increased for 11 consecutive months. That is great news for families and good news for business. The bad news, though, is the Coalition scheme to export jobs as exposed by one of its shadow Ministers. The Leader of the Opposition needs to explain what jobs he is going to axe and send overseas. The State Emergency Service, for example, has 32 staff involved in information technology. They are the backbone of our front-line emergency services. They rely on this critical technology being available 24 hours a day seven days a week. Someone being there to respond to a call can literally mean the difference between life and death for some people. What about the 50 information technology staff at the Rural Fire Service? They often also perform emergency operational roles. They are required to be in-house during emergencies so that they can be called on—

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 129. All of those information technology jobs are located in Penrith, I assume. It has nothing to do with jobs in regional New South Wales.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have been very tolerant of the member for Murrumbidgee. As I indicated earlier, the question referred to jobs in New South Wales. 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21465

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Regional jobs.

The SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear the word "regional" in the question. I suggest that the member for Murrumbidgee look at the question. He will cease taking inappropriate points of order. The Minister has the call.

Mr STEVE WHAN: We were having a geography lesson for a second. The State Emergency Service is located in Wollongong, which, the last time I looked, is not Penrith, and the Rural Fire Service, of course, is at Homebush.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 129. I want to clarify that we are talking about the same article. The article talks about you closing 130 data centres.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr STEVE WHAN: For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, this is the one we are talking about, "Coalition to increase outsourcing, efficiency."

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will not use the article as a prop.

Mr STEVE WHAN: It is a big headline. The Leader of the Opposition finally has responded after the numerous occasions we have talked about his leadership and lack of control over his upper House members. That leads me to comment that he has just allowed to be endorsed for the Legislative Council Liberals ticket a person who, at a public meeting before the last election campaign, compared Australian soldiers in Iraq to Nazi prison guards at Belsen. That is the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition: unwilling to take on the right wing of his party and put his stamp on it. Let us make no mistake: This Labor Government has been working with the Rudd Government to deliver growth for New South Wales. The Opposition wants to sack people and get rid of jobs. That is the way it will always be because the leopard does not change its spots.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order.

LAND ACQUISITION

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I direct my question to the Premier. As you want to be judged by your actions, which includes signing off planning approvals for developers who have donated millions to the New South Wales Australian Labor Party—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst has the call. I call the member for Blacktown to order for the second time.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Why should the New South Wales public have any trust in her as she now intends to seize family homes and onsell them to the very same developers?

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I thank the member for Wakehurst for this question because it allows me to clarify the vast gap between the Government and the Opposition on this issue. This Government's Metropolitan Strategy is about conserving our green neighbourhoods, conserving our greenbelt, conserving our food bowl and conserving our way of life by making the best use of what we have already. This is how any sustainable city grows. There is no standing still for a city such as Sydney. A city is either evolving or going backwards. This is a fact the Leader of the Opposition does not want to face. He wants to sell a myth that the economy can grow and Sydney can be a global city without anything changing. Anyone knows that this is nonsense.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst has asked his question. The Premier will be heard in silence.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Our city is different now from how it was 30 years ago and it will be different in 30 years time. The choice is never that nothing will change; the choice always is between planned growth and unplanned growth. The Leader of the Opposition does not want planned growth in Sydney.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on both sides of the Chamber will cease interjecting. The Premier will be heard in silence. 21466 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: The Leader of the Opposition has only one answer to population growth, housing affordability and changing household sizes: that Sydney will grow as it has always grown, on its fringe. He will push everything to the fringe of Sydney. When a grandmother in Gordon wants to move out of her three-bedroom home because she cannot maintain it anymore—

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Terrigal to order. I call the member for Bega to order for the second time. I call the member for Cessnock to order. The Premier has the call.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: When that grandmother in Gordon does not want to maintain her three-bedroom home anymore will there be a choice of accommodation in her community for her? Not under the plan of the Leader of the Opposition. His plan is to send her out to the fringe of Sydney.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Bega to order for the third time.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: When a young couple in the Sutherland shire want to start a family will they be able to stay near their parents? No, because the plan of the Leader of the Opposition is to send them two hours drive out of town. We are about ensuring that future generations have choices about where they live— choices about living in their communities. We are about protecting communities.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting, including the member for Kogarah.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: We are about protecting existing communities by ensuring that population growth is planned, centred around transport, and conserves the amenity of existing neighbourhoods. This is what the rest of the world calls best practice in urban planning. It is what the Leader of the Opposition calls Soviet-style command and control. Meanwhile the member for Wakehurst has been taking up the biggest, phoniest scare campaign since reds under the beds.

Mr Brad Hazzard: No.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: He is hitting the airwaves and is trying to convince mums, dads and grandparents that the sheriff is at their door and is ready to frogmarch them out of their home when in reality he is talking about compulsory acquisition powers that are at the disposal of every local government and in jurisdictions not only in Australia but also in the United Kingdom and the United States.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Castle Hill to order.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: Indeed, compulsory acquisition powers are in jurisdictions across most of the Western world. Those powers are subject to numerous safeguards and protection. This Government, like any government, has used those powers sparingly and only in cases that demonstrably are in the public interest.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Wakehurst to order. I call the member for Wakehurst to order for the second time.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: It is worth remembering how compulsory acquisition in just terms became the law of the land in New South Wales.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Hawkesbury to order.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: The member for Wakehurst failed to declare that in the festival of fright he is trying to run throughout Sydney. Who voted for compulsory acquisition provisions? The member for Wakehurst!

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: The member for Wakehurst voted in this House for those provisions. Not only that, but when the bill went through Parliament in 1991 it passed by one vote. If the member for Wakehurst had not voted in that way it would not be the law of the land.

Mr Michael Daley: That is right. 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21467

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: That is exactly right.

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129. No government before your Government has ever wanted to steal people's homes. Answer the question.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. I call the member for Wakehurst to order for the third time. He is on his final warning.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: While the member for Wakehurst is contradicting his own record, the member for Ku-ring-gai has contradicted himself.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Bathurst to order for the third time.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: When the member for Ku-ring-gai is addressing rallies in his electorate he says, "We're going to abolish part 3A." But when he talks to property councils he says, "Oh, no, we're not going to abolish it. We'll have a roundtable. We'll discuss it. We'll review it. But, oh, you know, it'll be right, mate. We'll keep it—yes, yes."

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Fairfield to order.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: When he has that roundtable, one person he might want to invite is the fresh wave from Manly, the member for Manly, because while the member for Ku-ring-gai is talking about winding back planning reforms the member from Manly wants to just rev them right up. When the Government introduced extraordinary planning reforms for the extraordinary situation of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan (State Infrastructure Delivery) Bill 2009 the member for Manly liked them so much he told the House, "They don't go far enough. We need more." He said, "We have to cut through the present system. We have to cut through. We need to extend these laws."

Mr Michael Daley: In other words, there is no policy.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: That is right—no policy, contradictions, and clearly Opposition members do not need to have a roundtable with industry; they need to have a roundtable with themselves. Meanwhile this Government will consider, in a thoughtful and mature way, how we will grow this city sustainably for now and the future.

M4 MOTORWAY TOLL

Ms TANYA GADIEL: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Roads. What is the latest information on the removal of the M4 toll?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I thank the member for her question. The constituents of the member for Parramatta are among the hundreds of thousands of commuters who have benefited from the toll's removal. A month ago today the Government removed the toll on the M4 Motorway. That toll was slapped on the people of western Sydney by the Greiner Government in 1992—when, incidentally, the Leader of the Opposition was the then transport Minister's chief of staff. Over the past weekend the Roads and Traffic Authority removed the final reminder of this Liberal legacy—the tollbooth canopy at Auburn.

The Roads and Traffic Authority has reported a small increase in the number of people using the M4 in the month since the Government removed the toll. The increase has occurred mostly against peak hour traffic flows, running westward in the mornings and towards the city in the afternoon when there is capacity for additional vehicles. Fewer vehicles have been using Parramatta and Victoria roads. We promised the people of western Sydney that the toll would be abolished under a Labor government and we have kept that promise. The Government removed the toll, despite the big business mates of the Liberal Party wanting to continue to make western Sydney motorists pay for the privilege of using the M4.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on both sides of the House will cease interjecting.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: We know that the Leader of the Opposition has a small target strategy, which has been ridiculed by his colleagues in Canberra, but the Opposition owes it to the people of western 21468 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

Sydney to state categorically once and for all that the Opposition will defy the business lobby groups and maintain abolition of the toll. First it refused to do so. Then, after being sprung, the Opposition said it would honour the contract now that the cost of construction of the M4 had been recouped. Then the Opposition called for better public transport for western Sydney.

Imagine the confusion of commuters when the Opposition refused to back better public transport for western Sydney in the form of the Western Express—a project that will slash travel times for western Sydney rail commuters and put more than 5,000 extra seats an hour on trains from the west. That is better public transport in anyone's book. This is an excellent example of how the Opposition regards transport and roads. There are no ideas, no decisions, and no leadership. There are just a few news grabs from the Leader of the Opposition about "Um what … ah what … ah um … the … you know … transport policy."

Mr Michael Daley: And that is on a good day.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Yes, that is on a good day from the Leader of the Opposition. All we hear from the Opposition are a few bleats, whinges, whines and things like "better public transport for western Sydney". Members of the Opposition have been shown up because we announced the Western Express for western Sydney that is worth $4.5 billion, yet still the Opposition refuses to put commuters first by supporting that plan. The people of Sydney deserve better than that.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Willoughby to order for the second time.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The people of Sydney put their trust in us to remove the toll, and we have honoured that commitment.

Question time concluded at 3.18 p.m.

LAND ACQUISITION

Personal Explanation

Mr BRAD HAZZARD, by leave: In the context—

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: In the context of the question I asked the Premier regarding her proposal to steal family homes for onselling to developers she accused me of voting for a bill in 1991 that was similar to the policy she espouses. The Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 authorised the resumption of land for public purposes only, such as hospitals, schools, roads, et cetera. That bill was supported by members on both sides of the House.

DEATH OF LIONEL COX

Ministerial Statement

Mr KEVIN GREENE (Oatley—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for Sport and Recreation) [3.19 p.m.]: Earlier today I had the privilege of representing the community of New South Wales at the funeral service for former Olympic gold medallist and legendary cyclist Lionel Cox. Lionel represented Australia at the 1952 Helsinki Olympics when, with Russell Mockridge, he won a gold medal in the tandem sprint. Indeed, they won on a bicycle they had had an opportunity to ride on only three occasions in practice. In fact, the tandem cycle was borrowed from the British team, which was throwing it out. Yet Cox and Mockridge managed to ride the cycle through the heats, the quarter finals, the semi-finals and then in the final against South Africa to win the gold medal for themselves and for Australia.

At the same Olympic Games in Helsinki Lionel Cox won a silver medal in the 1,000 metre sprint, going down by half a wheel to the Italian cyclist in the final. Lionel Cox was a magnificent cyclist and, most importantly, a magnificent representative of sport and sports men and women in Australia. Lionel had to raise the money for his fares to make it to Helsinki to participate in the Olympics. Indeed, his mother had to mortgage her house so that he could undertake the trip to represent his country. That is a change from what we see today with our representative sports people. 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21469

In 1963 Lionel Cox was seriously injured when he cracked two vertebrae in his neck and had to retire from cycling. He then undertook a long and extensive career in coaching, particularly at Tempe velodrome—he was also known at Dunc Gray velodrome—and supporting his cyclists. He was a great representative of the sport of cycling and we can reflect on his contribution to Australian sport. As I said, it was a privilege to represent the people of New South Wales at his memorial service today. I know all members will join me in passing our sympathies to his son Brad, his grandchildren Kelly, Brett, Kirsty and Lionel Junior and his great-granddaughter Ruby. I pass on those regards today.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [3.22 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals, and I am sure the crossbenchers, join with the Minister in passing on our condolences to the Cox family. Lionel Cox was inducted into the Australian sports hall of fame in 1993. He is recognised by historians as being in the top 100 of Australia's greatest Olympians. As the Minister said, Lionel is probably recognised more for his ingenuity: the story of the English throwing out the bike and Cox and Mockridge putting it together and taking out the tandem gold medal at Helsinki is legendary. Our thoughts go out to his family. The member for Marrickville might like to know that after the Cox family moved from Brisbane when Lionel was 15 he rode for the Marrickville club. Our thoughts go out to a great Australian.

The SPEAKER: The House joins with the Minister and the shadow Minister and offers condolences to Lionel Cox's family.

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Report

The Speaker announced the receipt, pursuant to section 78 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, of the report entitled "Report on Conduct Affecting the Administration of Justice in the Wagga Wagga and Other Local Court Areas", dated March 2010.

Ordered to be printed.

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report

Mr Allan Shearan, as Chair, tabled the report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 3 of 2010", dated 16 March 2010, together with the minute extracts for "Legislation Review Digest No. 2 of 2010".

Report ordered to be printed on motion by Mr Allan Shearan.

PETITIONS

The Clerk announced that the following petitions signed by fewer than 500 persons were lodged for presentation:

Wagga Wagga Base Hospital

Petition requesting funding for and the commencement of construction of a new Wagga Wagga Base Hospital in this parliamentary term, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Tumut Renal Dialysis Service

Petition asking that the House support the establishment of a satellite renal dialysis service in Tumut, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Tumut Hospital and Batlow Multiple Purpose Service

Petition asking that vital equipment be provided immediately to both Tumut Hospital and Batlow Multiple Purpose Service, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Wagga Wagga Respite Services

Petition requesting funding for a second respite house and the provision of accessible access to the existing respite premises in the Wagga Wagga electorate, received from Mr Daryl Maguire. 21470 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

Bus Service 311

Petition requesting improved services on bus route 311, received from Ms Clover Moore.

National Parks Tourism Developments

Petition opposing the construction of tourism developments in national parks, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2009

Petition opposing the Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2009 in its entirety, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Shoalhaven Local Area Command

Petition requesting additional resources for the Shoalhaven Local Area Command, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Shoalhaven Police Station

Petition requesting funding for the establishment of a new police station in the central Shoalhaven area, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Retail Electricity Pricing

Petition opposing the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal recommendations to increase retail electricity prices from between 44 per cent and 62 per cent, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Pet Shops

Petition opposing the sale of animals in pet shops, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Mental Health Services

Petition requesting increased funding for mental health services, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Burrill Lake

Petition requesting the water level be reduced from 1.25 metres to 0.9 metres to allow the manual opening of Burrill Lake to alleviate community concerns and reduce the negative environment effects of the lake closure, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

The Clerk announced that the following petition signed by more than 500 persons was lodged for presentation:

Coogee Bay Hotel Site

Petition opposing any redevelopment of the site bounded by Coogee Bay Road and Arden and Vicar Streets under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, received from Mr Paul Pearce.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Business Lapsed

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) Nos 659 to 678 lapsed pursuant to Standing Order 105 (3).

HISTORIC HOUSES AMENDMENT (THROSBY PARK HISTORIC SITE) BILL 2009

Bill received from the Legislative Council and introduced.

Agreement in principle set down as an order of the day for a later hour. 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21471

CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO BE ACCORDED PRIORITY

WorkChoices

Ms CHERIE BURTON (Kogarah) [3.25 p.m.]: My motion expresses concern about the Federal Opposition's refusal to abandon WorkChoices and calls on the New South Wales Opposition to join the Government in opposing any return to WorkChoices proposed by the Federal Coalition. In November 1997 the voters of Australia overwhelmingly rejected WorkChoices by electing a Rudd Labor Government. The Federal Opposition and the State Opposition must rule out completely a return to WorkChoices, for the sake of all Australian workers and their families.

Government Performance

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [3.26 p.m.]: My motion should be accorded priority because New South Wales is in crisis. We have a new Premier—the fourth Premier in five years—and all we have seen from her in 100 days is photograph after photograph after photograph. No-one in Sydney or, indeed, in New South Wales is safe from camera lenses and the Premier.

Ms Cherie Burton: Point of order: The member for Murrumbidgee is supposed to be explaining why his motion should be accorded priority. I doubt whether casting aspersions on the Premier gives his motion any sort of priority.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: To the point of order: As the Speaker said during question time, he gives members on both sides of the House extreme latitude when it comes to speeches in the Parliament. All we have seen from the Premier is photograph opportunity after photograph opportunity. Nothing and no-one are safe in New South Wales. I fear that the next victim will be Mr Shuffles at Taronga Zoo. I cannot believe it has been almost a week and the Premier has not had a photo taken with Mr Shuffles. Nobody is safe. Not surprisingly, I believe Mr Shuffles declined the opportunity. It would be funny if it were not so serious.

New South Wales is in crisis. My motion should be accorded priority today because the New South Wales Government has done nothing of substance in the 105 days since the member for Heffron became Premier. The only thing the Government has done is stuff up New South Wales even further. The Government has released another transport blueprint for Sydney and it has whacked everyone in New South Wales with a tax to help pay for that blueprint, to pay for what is essentially an unfunded promise of $50 billion. The Government has already blown out its spendometer for the next election at $50 billion. The transport blueprint is unfunded: it has not been costed properly. No-one believes that the Government will deliver anything.

It is funny that the member for Parramatta should be in the chair, because she promised to dig the Epping to Parramatta rail link. She offered to get a shovel and dig it herself. The New South Wales Government is unable to deliver anything. All we have after 100 days is a glossy brochure. Today the Leader of The Nationals offered a photo of the Premier out in the bush, but does the member for Mount Druitt know how hard it is to sort through all the photographs of the Premier? There are hundreds and perhaps thousands of them. There are so many photos of the Premier that if they were matched with action we would accept that as being appropriate. The Premier looks great in a photo with her hair. Today the Speaker made reference to my hair and in my defence I say that my hair is carbon neutral: it requires only a little bit of shampoo. I do not think the Premier could say the same about her hair. One can imagine the cans of hairspray that are used for her hairstyle.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will come to order.

Mr Frank Terenzini: Point of order: If the Opposition cannot take this House seriously—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: One can only imagine the number of cans of hairspray, which will contribute to at least one degree of warming during the next 12 months. The Speaker has been going very soft on the Premier because they share hairdressers— [Time expired.]

Mr David Harris: Point of order: I know a lot of latitude is given in this debate. We all enjoy having a bit of sport about each other's performances but the member for Murrumbidgee became personal about the Premier's appearance and I believe that is inappropriate. 21472 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! While I acknowledge the point of order taken by the member for Wyong, the time for debate has expired.

Question—That the motion of the member for Kogarah be accorded priority—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 47

Mr Amery Mr Gibson Ms Megarrity Ms Andrews Mr Greene Mr Morris Mr Aquilina Mr Harris Mrs Paluzzano Mr Borger Ms Hay Mr Pearce Mr Brown Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Ms Burney Ms Hornery Mr Rees Ms Burton Ms Judge Mr Shearan Mr Campbell Mr Khoshaba Mr Stewart Mr Coombs Mr Koperberg Ms Tebbutt Mr Corrigan Mr Lalich Mr Terenzini Mr Costa Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Mr Daley Mr McBride Mr West Ms D'Amore Dr McDonald Mr Whan Ms Firth Ms McKay Tellers, Mr Furolo Mr McLeay Mr Ashton Ms Gadiel Ms McMahon Mr Martin

Noes, 36

Mr Aplin Mr Hazzard Mr Roberts Mr Baird Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Skinner Mr Baumann Mrs Hopwood Mr Smith Ms Berejiklian Mr Humphries Mr Souris Mr Besseling Mr Kerr Mr Stokes Mr Cansdell Ms Moore Mr Stoner Mr Constance Mr O'Dea Mr R. W. Turner Mr Debnam Mr O'Farrell Mr R. C. Williams Mr Dominello Mr Page Tellers, Mr Fraser Mr Piccoli Ms Goward Mr Piper Mrs Hancock Mr Provest Mr George Mr Hartcher Mr Richardson Mr Maguire

Pairs

Ms Beamer Mr Merton Mr Collier Mr J. H. Turner Mr Sartor Mr J. D. Williams

Question resolved in the affirmative.

WORKCHOICES

Motion Accorded Priority

Ms CHERIE BURTON (Kogarah) [3.40 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) expresses its concern at the Federal Opposition's refusal to abandon WorkChoices; and

(2) calls on the New South Wales Opposition to join with the Government in opposing any return to WorkChoices proposed by the Federal Opposition. 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21473

In March 2006 the former Howard Government forced its extreme industrial relations policy onto working families of Australia. Workers who were previously covered by State awards, which guaranteed basic entitlements like penalty rates and overtime, were forced into a system where employers could rip away those conditions. What did they call this draconian plan to tip the balance in favour of big business at the expense of Australian families? The member for Wakehurst may laugh, but they called it WorkChoices. As we all know, under the so-called WorkChoices laws, workers were given no choices at all.

Unfair dismissal provisions were removed, effectively giving workers only two options when negotiating their workplace agreement with their boss—take it, or leave it. Australian workplace agreements [AWAs] were introduced and became a tool to undermine every entitlement fought for and won over 100 years of industrial struggle. Penalty rates were stripped away and Saturdays, Sundays and late nights became ordinary working hours. WorkChoices hurt workers in their workplaces and in their homes and that is why members on this side of the House celebrated when the Federal Government tore it up. Surely, any reasonable and fair-minded person would not dream of bringing it back. Unfortunately, reasonable and fair-minded is not how one would describe the Federal Coalition.

Australian working families are once again standing in the shadow of a dark cloud. Tony Abbott has dug up the carcass of WorkChoices and the people of New South Wales once again have an axe hanging over their heads. WorkChoices stripped away the rights of ordinary Australians. Let us look at some examples and see whether members opposite are still laughing. It forced mums and dads out of work for no reason and left them with no recourse to unfair dismissal laws. It deprived families of time together, giving flexibility to the boss but stealing flexibility away from working families. Teenagers in their first-ever jobs were told they would be employed on an AWA—no penalty rates, no rights, no negotiation. The Howard Government rode roughshod over the award safety net that had been in place for over 100 years to protect the rights of vulnerable workers. Who could forget the human impact of WorkChoices?

Members of the Opposition have been laughing, but let us hear about some of the victims of WorkChoices. Remember Annette Harris of Coffs Harbour who was forced to go onto a contract that stripped away her leave and holiday benefits for an extra 2¢ an hour? I say to the Opposition: That is absolutely hilarious, isn't it? I also recall the plight of the Cowra abattoir workers who were sacked and then rehired on AWAs, which cut their pay by up to $180 a week. And the Opposition thinks that is funny? For that brief and dark period when WorkChoices dominated the country's industrial landscape, there were not many Australians who were not impacted by WorkChoices in some way. That is why the Howard Government was dramatically swept from power at the 2007 Federal election, and that is why the former Prime Minister lost his seat of Bennelong, only the second Prime Minister in our nation's history to lose his parliamentary seat. Recently Tony Abbott told the Macquarie Radio Network:

So Work Choices is well and truly dead but there are some aspects, many aspects of the Howard Government policies that we do need to keep.

What aspects do we want to keep? Just ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Julie Bishop, who said:

Bringing back inflexible working conditions such as the penalty rates regime is costing employers more, it is making many workers worse off …

Are they kidding? Tony Abbott said:

… at four elections running we won a mandate to take the unfair dismissal monkey off the back of small business.

And:

We had a mandate to introduce statutory non-union contracts and we will seek to renew that mandate.

In summary, if Tony Abbott is elected Prime Minister, he will strip away penalty rates, scrap unfair dismissal laws, and bring back AWAs. The Federal Opposition is planning to bring back the worst aspects of WorkChoices. The only thing that can be guaranteed is that it will not be called WorkChoices. The Federal Opposition has made its position very clear. It has been almost 90 days since the Federal Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, first indicated that WorkChoices would be back under his leadership. But here in New South Wales the Opposition has said nothing—not a thing. In fact I know the only contribution that the Opposition has made today is the member for Murrumbidgee expressing his affinity with Mr Shuffles.

It is the good old small target strategy from Barry O'Farrell once again, and the Leader of the Opposition hopes that the people of New South Wales will not notice. He is hoping that the people of New 21474 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

South Wales will not care that their rights and protections are once again hanging in the balance. The people of New South Wales are too smart for that. They will not be fooled. They will not stand by and allow their rights to be ripped away once again. They will not stand by while their wages are cut, their unfair dismissal rights are slashed, or their penalty rates are stolen and nor will this Government.

The New South Wales Government's commitment to the people of New South Wales is rock solid. We have fought against WorkChoices once and we will not shy away from the fight again. This is not a hollow commitment: it is a promise to the workers of New South Wales. It is a promise that we, on this side of the House, will do all we can to protect the people of New South Wales from Tony Abbott's unfair industrial relations policy—God forbid he should ever end up in Government. It is time for the Opposition to show its hand. Will the Opposition join the Government and protect New South Wales workers from Tony Abbott's WorkChoices by another name? Will the Opposition join the Government in condemning the Federal Opposition for planning to scrap penalty rates, strip unfair dismissal rights and bring back Australian workplace agreements? That is the question we are asking the other side of the House today and that is the question we want answered today, in this House, in this debate.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [3.47 p.m.]: I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That" with a view to inserting instead:

this House:

(1) notes all industrial relations powers (except for the Public Service) have been transferred to the Federal Government;

(2) condemns the failure of the New South Wales Government to protect jobs in this State; and

(3) condemns the New South Wales Government's failure to debate State issues appropriate to the New South Wales Parliament such as transport, roads, health and education.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Federal sphere, Tony Abbott, is making outstanding progress, as the news poll showed only today, and is now two points ahead of Mr Rudd, the man who nobody could ever beat. Mr Rudd's own popularity has dropped to 48 per cent. Mr Abbott, making the powerful contribution that he is to the Liberal-National cause across the country, has made it quite clear that, when re-elected to power at the end of this year, the Coalition will not be reintroducing WorkChoices. Tony Abbott's views were reported on 17 February 2010 in the Australia Associated Press as follows:

The Howard government's Work Choices regime is a "dead policy from an old government", federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says. …

"That was a dead policy from an old government," Mr Abbott said. …

Visiting a bakery in Geelong, Mr Abbott said the Rudd government's new industrial relations laws would typically add 20 per cent to the wages bill of a bakery.

"That means perhaps one dollar a loaf increase in the price of bread," Mr Abbott said.

Mr Abbott has made it clear that that is the Coalition's policy, so why is it that, following the High Court decision in the WorkChoices case last year when the New South Wales Government, through Attorney General John Hatzistergos, transferred to Canberra all industrial relations powers, other than those over the public service, this Parliament is still debating an issue over which it claims no jurisdiction, having surrendered its jurisdiction, and has no real interest, as it is a State Parliament, in a Federal matter where the Federal Leader of the Opposition has loudly and clearly declared that WorkChoices will not proceed? The reason is simple. The New South Wales Government does not wish to debate the issues appropriate to the New South Wales Parliament because it has a record it cannot defend. It has a record it cannot defend in jobs, health, transport, roads and education. Let us look at its record in jobs.

Ms Cherie Burton: Point of order: The member's speech is way outside even his own amendment. This is about WorkChoices. It is not about anything to which he is about to deviate. I ask the member to stick to his amendment.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I will hear further from the member for Terrigal.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I draw your attention to paragraph (2) of the amendment, Madam Deputy-Speaker, which talks about protecting jobs in New South Wales. 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21475

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I do not recall the member for Terrigal signing and submitting the amendment to me.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I have signed and submitted it.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! As the member can see, I have just received it.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: Yes, Madam Deputy-Speaker, you are not on the ball. That is a reflection on you.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! That was a very silly thing for the member for Terrigal to say.

Ms Cherie Burton: Point of order: The way the member referred to you in your role as Deputy-Speaker is completely inappropriate and unparliamentary and I ask him to behave himself.

Mr Matt Brown: Further to the point of order: I concur with my colleague the member for Kogarah and I ask the member for Terrigal to withdraw that comment, which reflects poorly on this Chamber.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The Government has failed—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Government members have asked whether the member for Terrigal is prepared to withdraw his comment.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: It is not within the member for Kiama's power to ask that. In what capacity does he make that submission?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Any member can ask for a comment to be withdrawn.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I withdraw the comment. I note that you allowed two speakers to take up my time to make the same point, but that is by the way. Only today the Australian newspaper carries a report of 130 data centres closing under this Government. More jobs are disappearing. Only in the last three months has it been revealed that the 600 train carriages that the Government so proudly talks about being constructed for the New South Wales railway system are going to be constructed in China—more jobs leaving New South Wales. As the member for Wagga Wagga says, the New South Wales Government has closed the Wagga Centre. Again and again across New South Wales this Government does not protect people's jobs. Again and again the Government's failures in the health area are illustrated. They are revealed by the very fact that the Prime Minister is taking action to take over the public health system, and he was quite public in his refusal to acknowledge the role of the Premier last week.

This Government is failing in relation to jobs, health and education. The education stimulus package has resulted in millions of dollars being wasted. The Government has failed in relation to transport and roads. The Premier herself acknowledged today that people are dying because of neglect of road conditions on the Pacific Highway. What does the member for Kogarah do? Anxious to raise the number of times she has spoken in Parliament—which was so well illustrated by Alex Mitchell when he wrote, "… Hansard records Ms Burton speaking just four times in the 100 [sitting days] since the 2007 state election"—she has made two private members' statements—

Ms Cherie Burton: Point of order—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Terrigal will resume his seat.

Ms Cherie Burton: First of all, those reports are inaccurate. Secondly, I had time off from Parliament to have my second child. That is how much of a disgrace the member for Terrigal is. He should be very careful about quoting in this Parliament rubbish like that written by Alex Mitchell.

[Time expired.]

Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama) [3.54 p.m.]: I am glad to contribute to this debate because it is a very important one. I am appalled that the Opposition has decided to steer away from not only the motion but also its 21476 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

amendment in order to make personal attacks on members on this side of the Chamber. It clearly shows the Opposition's tactics. Opposition members do not have any arguments or policies so they get down in the gutter and throw mud around. The subject matter of the motion is a very legitimate area for debate. The member for Terrigal spoke mainly about aspects of his amendment but did not put forward any policy. The Opposition continually wants to go down the road of setting a small target. Only recently the member for Terrigal, who is the shadow Minister for Local Government, was discussing the potential amalgamation of Gosford and Wyong councils.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: I refer to relevance. The member for Kiama is now talking about the amalgamation of Gosford and Wyong councils. It has nothing to do with the motion or the amendment.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I extended a degree of latitude to the member for Terrigal, and I will extend a degree of latitude to the member for Kiama. I will hear further from the member for Kiama.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Further to the point of order: The member for Kiama might like to tell the House about the Mexican restaurant and how the staff there were on Australian workplace agreements.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Terrigal will resume his seat. I will hear further from the member for Kiama.

Mr MATT BROWN: We are putting up a position and a policy, and the Opposition is not. When the member for Terrigal was asked what his position was at the meeting chaired by George Negus, he basically said, "We don't have a position at all", after talking on and on. That is what we have heard today—examples of serious policy issues being debated in this Chamber and the Opposition doing nothing more than being a small target or throwing muck at members on this side of the Chamber. I find that disgraceful.

Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop have reinstated this issue and given the debate life. They have definitely put WorkChoices back on the political agenda by strongly indicating their plan for industrial relations. If Tony Abbott were elected Prime Minister one day—God forbid—an employer would be able to tell his employees there would be no more penalty rates. If an employee complained about it the following day he could be sacked without any reason or remedy being given to him. The recent comments by Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop certainly sent shivers down my spine, as I am sure they would for workers across New South Wales. Their comments have reminded us all of the damage inflicted by WorkChoices. We know they are not going to call it WorkChoices again but they are going to bring it back in another guise. It emphasises how important it is that we ensure they are never elected to office and that policy never returns.

My colleague referred to the human impact of WorkChoices. We all remember the terrible story of Amber Oswald, a 16-year-old whose first experience in the workplace was to be made redundant. She was then re-hired on an AWA, which removed her Sunday penalty rates. The AWA reduced her hourly rate and abolished her penalty rates, effectively cutting her pay by $40 for a shift. That was a lot of money for that 16-year-old. Many of us have heard similar stories in our electorates. I have certainly had workers in the Kiama electorate express concern and a number of employers in the Illawarra and Kiama area did not like WorkChoices one bit. They knew it was important for their staff to be properly looked after, properly remunerated and properly respected. They did not want to see the fabric of our society torn up and thrown away by what the Liberals and Nationals were proposing. I encourage the Liberals and Nationals to get behind the debate so well articulated by the member for Kogarah and let their colleagues in Canberra know they must keep their hands off New South Wales and off WorkChoices. It is a policy we do not want to see revived.

Ms CHERIE BURTON (Kogarah) [3.59 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Kiama for his contribution to this very important debate. The contribution made by the member for Terrigal is quite another matter. Firstly, the Opposition argued about which motion should take priority and then the member for Murrumbidgee spoke about baby elephants and hairspray. That is how much importance they attach to the people of New South Wales and the issues that affect them. That also demonstrates the importance they attach to this Chamber.

No more need be said about that except to refer to the arrogance of the Opposition. So arrogant are they and so confident that next year's election will be a lay-down misère and a walk-up start, that right throughout my speech and that of the member for Kiama about the very real threat to working conditions, which has not been 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21477

ruled out by Tony Abbott or Julie Bishop—the abolition of workers' rights and penalty rates, the scrapping of unfair dismissal laws and the reintroduction of Australian workplace agreements—members of the Opposition were laughing. Opposition members thought that was hilarious. Obviously, the silvertails on the other side of the House have not been impacted by WorkChoices, whereas many people in my electorate and people in my family have been impacted by it.

When I spoke earlier in debate and said that the Opposition's policy would no longer be called WorkChoices, the member for Terrigal, in his usual narky and arrogant way, said on two occasions, "You are on to the secret." Today it was confirmed in this Chamber that the Opposition's policy would no longer be called WorkChoices. It was admitted in this House today that Opposition members will be picking out the worst parts of WorkChoices. Apart from deciding to degrade other members in this Chamber for having children and for trying to run their own businesses, the only sense we got out of the member for Terrigal was that the worst parts of WorkChoices, which was introduced by the Howard Government, would be picked out and called something else.

Opposition members are colluding with the Federal Opposition to ensure that that happens. Beware, New South Wales! Opposition members perceived this motion as so important to workers and their families in New South Wales that only one speaker participated in debate on the issue. Earlier I referred to the disgraceful contribution of the member for Murrumbidgee, who referred to the Wiggles and to a baby elephant. I will be mailing that speech to constituents in my electorate so that they are aware of what might be in store for them if they believe the Coalition is any sort of alternative government.

Let us get back to the real issue. The Federal Opposition must rule out any aspect of WorkChoices being returned, and the New South Wales Opposition must say that it no longer supports WorkChoices. Do members need any more confirmation of why this matter is important and why it is being debated in the Chamber today? This matter is important to the people of Kogarah and to the people of New South Wales. Opposition members want to sweep the issue under the carpet and to talk about hairspray and baby elephants when the real issue relates to what will happen to WorkChoices if, God forbid, we were ever to have another Federal Coalition government.

Will we again hear about Billy the sales assistant? The Australian workplace agreement that Billy was offered provides him with the relevant minimum award classification wage and explicitly removes award conditions for public holidays, rest breaks, bonuses, annual leave loadings, allowances, penalty rates and shift overtime loading. As Billy has no bargaining power, and as he wants to get a foothold in the door, he accepts the Australian workplace agreement. All those conditions for which we fought for over a century will just go out the door. Opposition members want to resurrect that policy. I refer, next, to Tanika Setter from Chilli's Restaurant in Wollongong. Tanika Setter, a 17-year-old casual employee from Wollongong, found that her Australian workplace agreement—

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: The member for Kogarah, who is speaking in reply to debate on this motion, is required to reply to arguments that were presented; she is not allowed to introduce new material. Earlier she introduced new material relating to Billy, to which I did not object.

Ms CHERIE BURTON: To the point of order: The member for Terrigal said that this debate was irrelevant. I am responding to his statement by saying how relevant it is.

Mr Chris Hartcher: The member for Kogarah is now introducing further new material, which is outside the standing orders.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I will hear further from the member for Kogarah, who appears to be referring to notes. I remind the member for Terrigal of the broad nature of this debate.

Ms CHERIE BURTON: Tanika Setter, a 17-year-old casual employee from Wollongong, found that her Australian workplace agreement meant she could finish a shift poorer than when she started. She said:

Under the AWA if the customer left without paying it came out of my wages.

[Time expired.] 21478 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

Question—That the words stand—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 49

Mr Amery Mr Gibson Mr Morris Ms Andrews Mr Greene Mrs Paluzzano Mr Aquilina Mr Harris Mr Pearce Mr Besseling Ms Hay Mrs Perry Mr Borger Mr Hickey Mr Piper Mr Brown Ms Hornery Mr Rees Ms Burney Ms Judge Mr Shearan Ms Burton Mr Khoshaba Mr Stewart Mr Campbell Mr Koperberg Ms Tebbutt Mr Coombs Mr Lalich Mr Terenzini Mr Corrigan Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Mr Costa Mr McBride Mr West Mr Daley Dr McDonald Mr Whan Ms D'Amore Ms McKay Ms Firth Mr McLeay Tellers, Mr Furolo Ms McMahon Mr Ashton Ms Gadiel Ms Megarrity Mr Martin

Noes, 33

Mr Aplin Mr Hazzard Mr Smith Mr Baird Ms Hodgkinson Mr Souris Mr Baumann Mrs Hopwood Mr Stokes Ms Berejiklian Mr Humphries Mr Stoner Mr Cansdell Mr Kerr Mr J. H. Turner Mr Constance Mr O'Dea Mr R. W. Turner Mr Debnam Mr Page Mr R. C. Williams Mr Dominello Mr Piccoli Mr Fraser Mr Provest Ms Goward Mr Richardson Tellers, Mrs Hancock Mr Roberts Mr George Mr Hartcher Mrs Skinner Mr Maguire

Pairs

Ms Beamer Mr Merton Mr Collier Mr O'Farrell Mr Sartor Mr J. D. Williams

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Debate on the motion accorded priority having concluded, the House will now proceed to Government business.

WASTE RECYCLING AND PROCESSING CORPORATION (AUTHORISED TRANSACTION) BILL 2010

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 10 March 2010.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [4.13 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010. The Opposition has articulated for a considerable period of time that this business should be sold. Indeed, this is the only State Government to retain such an ownership. It 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21479

is time to examine private sector options and solutions to some of the significant challenges this industry faces. However, the Opposition has some key concerns with the bill and foreshadows that it will move two amendments in the upper House. Currently, we are negotiating the wording of those amendments, but I am pleased to say that at this stage the Government appears to support them in principle.

As far as the taxpayers and the broader New South Wales community are concerned, that is a good thing. The object of the bill is to transfer to the private sector the State-owned waste disposal business of the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation. That the Government is both operator and regulator of this facility has been of considerable frustration to many participants. The bill addresses this anomaly by having that conflict removed at the conclusion of this transaction. Removing that conflict should be the central premise of this transaction. However, we understand that some assets will be retained in government ownership. Landfill is a declining business due to the growth of alternative waste technology. Developed alternative waste technology facilities require ongoing investment in technology and capital. In this country and globally the private sector innovates strongly in these forms of technologies. Certainly, environmental outcomes can significantly improve those technologies.

We support this transaction in the hope that alternative waste technology in this State will be enhanced. We trust that the Government will address that particular aspect of our proposed amendments. At the heart of our concern is that the State Labor Government has a habit of taking the jam for today and failing to plan for tomorrow—that is, taking the cash today and leaving the problems to others. I do not want to harp on about what happened with unfunded superannuation in this State, but from most recent reports we still have about $30 billion in unfunded superannuation. The contrary approach of the Federal Government to unfunded superannuation was to set up the Future Fund in anticipation of such a problem and the position now has been reached that the liability is fully funded in Canberra. Instead, New South Wales has $30 billion in liabilities that continue to drag this State. We do not want to see a replication of problems by the Government selling part of the waste assets, taking the money and forgetting about the liabilities.

I am pleased that the Government has indicated its agreement to our amendments to ensure that all future long-term liabilities are met by the cash proceeds from the sale. Obviously, by hanging on to the rump of the transaction, for want of a better expression, spending those funds on other short-term purposes will expose New South Wales to picking up liabilities through subsequent budgets by selling whatever assets remain. In practical terms that means less money for health, education and the Department of Community Services to deal with the liabilities that will be retained by the State as part of this transaction. It is in the State's interests to have a clear proposition that any funds raised through this transaction are retained for the purpose of meeting all liabilities. Therefore, future problems will be dealt with today. That discipline should be demonstrated by this Government. As I have said, the Opposition will move amendments in the upper House, subject to agreement on their wording.

The purpose of the bill is to authorise and facilitate the transfer to the private sector of the rights, assets and liabilities of the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation, trading as WSN Environmental Solutions. This corporation was formed by combining local government landfill operations and was corporatised in 2001. WSN Environmental Solutions owns and operates landfills and kerbside waste collection, provides waste management services, and conducts research and alternative technology. The bill provides incredible flexibility to the Treasurer to facilitate the sale, and this is where the issue of trust enters the equation. Ultimately, the Treasurer will be able to execute this sale under almost any structure, any terms and any forms. For any Treasurer to have such flexibility is an ideal proposition, but we acknowledge that this is a complex transaction.

We acknowledge also the significant and intricate environmental concerns, the liabilities, and the competition issues to be addressed. I understand fully the need for this flexibility. However, we note that the Auditor-General will oversee the transaction at the conclusion. We will ensure that the best possible outcome has been achieved for the people of New South Wales. The Opposition contends that without the amendments suggested by it and presented in the upper House, the Government's legislation would have enabled the Treasurer to sell under any transactional structure and commit the proceeds of the sale to unrelated purposes, with intention of retaining liabilities and dealing with them in future budgets. The Opposition rejects that methodology. We are pleased that the Government has agreed with the amendments that the Opposition has proposed.

In general terms the key elements of the legislation are that part 2 authorises the transfer of WSN Environmental Solutions to the private sector and part 3 facilitates that transaction through one of the following methods: direct vesting of assets and liabilities, converting WSN to a Corporations Act 2001 company by 21480 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

transferring shares, or establishing a new company. The selection of the appropriate method will be part of the negotiations between advisers and the Government with a view to achieving the best method as well as the best result. The Opposition is au fait with that approach. Clause 14 of part 3 establishes the Waste Asset Management Corporation, which will be under the control of the Treasurer. The corporation will retain and manage sites that are not transferred. A general manager and staff will be appointed to the new corporation. As the Opposition understands this proposition, the corporation will receive assets that have not been sold.

By implication the assets transferred to the corporation will come with a liability value that may be in excess of the value of the assets. As a standard procedure, that would mean that more will be owed than is retained in the entity as assets. The Opposition is concerned about liabilities that accompany this transaction. The State needs to be very careful to ensure that liabilities are dealt with in a prudent and fiscally responsible manner. That would be the outcome if the proceeds of sale were applied directly against liabilities to reduce them. Schedule 4 deals with the transfer of WSN employees as well as their rights and entitlements, which include a three-year employment guarantee for permanent employees, or the option to remain in the public sector. That proposition is along the lines of similar transactions that the Government has been involved in, and the Opposition understands the Government's approach.

The transaction proposed by the Government is not based on a universally accepted proposition. As a whole, the private sector supports the sale, but I urge the Minister to respond during his reply to some of the comments expressed by the industry. The Government for more than a year has withheld publishing the Wright review's report on waste processing and disposal capacity and capability across Sydney. The Opposition would like to know why the report has not been released. We would like to know also whether non-publication of the report has played a role in the shape of negotiations relating to the current transaction, or has a purpose in relation to other matters of which the Opposition is not aware. The Opposition calls on the Government to release the report and provide information associated with the review. If the Government is claiming that its process is transparent, it should have no fear of releasing a report on a review that has examined the very issues upon which the legislation is based. I am sure the report articulates general concerns that have been expressed and would provide information for anyone interested in bidding for waste management and recycling businesses.

Concerns have been expressed about the creation of a monopoly. Clearly, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be required to sign off on the transaction but, as matters stand, effectively WSN is a monopoly. It is untenable for a public sector monopoly to be replaced by a private sector monopoly. The Treasurer has the ability to address and change the structure to ensure that concerns relating to competition are addressed. The Opposition's proposed amendments address that issue. The Local Government and Shires Associations in principle do not wholeheartedly support the transaction but are philosophical, provided that safeguards in relation to environmental and social wellbeing are preserved.

The Opposition's proposed amendments address that issue and go part of the way towards addressing some of the issues raised by the Local Government and Shires Associations. The Government should refine its strategies in relation to the way in which it deals with this sector. It is one thing to take an asset out of the equation, but in the context of implications for the environment how will we reduce the number of landfills and accelerate some technological advancements through alternative waste technology? They are critical points that need to be addressed by the Government and this bill. The Opposition requires more direction and more information from the Government in relation to those concerns. We agree with concerns expressed by stakeholders and community groups regarding this legislation.

The Government's proposed strategy was announced in November 2008 as part of a mini-budget. The value of the transaction at that point was approximately $400 million. The market is uncertain relative to the value of the transaction that will be realised in 2010. Clearly the Opposition is none the wiser about the ultimate price the Government will receive as a result of this transaction. However, sale proceeds seem to be somewhat less than purported by the mini-budget. The Minister should address during his reply the reasons for the apparent reduction in value of the sale since 2008. The value of $250 million or $300 million seems to be suggested more often than is the value of $400 million.

The Government should clarify whether the reduction in the estimate relates to outstanding legal claims. The Opposition understands that there is at least one material outstanding legal claim that remains to be addressed. We understand that the matter has reached a commercial conclusion, but we suspect that that has impacted upon the estimates of sale proceeds. The Opposition is interested only in transparency of the 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21481

transaction. We want to understand exactly what has transpired in relation to the assets and liabilities and their current status at this point. The market perceives potential value from the sale. A number of commentators indicate that in the vicinity of $250 million to $300 million may well be realised.

The concerns I have outlined form the basis for the amendments that will be put forward in the Legislative Council. While the Opposition supports the sale of WSN and believes that the transaction is capable of being fully served, as the legislation currently stands, and without the benefit of Opposition amendments, the Government will have the opportunity to maximise sale proceeds and apply that to whatever purpose it sees fit. The Government has not articulated the purposes to which the sale proceeds will be applied. The Opposition strongly suspects that the Government's failure to mitigate liabilities associated with the sale will expose future budgets to failure. I cannot overstate the critical importance of that element.

If the Government attempts to deal with liabilities associated with the transaction at some stage in the future instead of as collateral to the sale transaction, the cuts that will have to be made to government expenditure to deal with those liabilities will come from front-line services provision, such as in health, education and policing. I do not wish to be part of any transaction that does not deal today with current financial problems. We cannot go on engendering a culture of dealing with today's problems tomorrow. Let us deal with them today. By applying the sale proceeds, the Government will have the ability to do exactly that in relation to the assets and liabilities associated with the transaction.

The Opposition has asked the Treasurer for an independent view that quantifies liabilities and the plan to mitigate them. The Government has given me a verbal undertaking that it will provide an independent view of what future liabilities there may be. The Opposition will wait to see what they are, but we suspect that they will amount to tens of billions of dollars rather than hundreds of millions of dollars. We await with eager anticipation the correct figure that will be produced by an independent expert. From a parliamentary point of view, it is important for the Opposition to know how much will be retained at the point of sale as liabilities to the State and the cash that will offset liabilities in the longer term.

The Government has been silent on key issues, including competition. Today the Sydney Morning Herald reported local councils' concerns that the cost to ratepayers will increase if the monopoly is allowed to continue. The question begged is a very simple one: From the point of view of ratepayers and consumers in the State, what does this transaction mean? Does it mean that new operators will come in and start to renegotiate contracts with concomitant increases in charges for simple kerbside collections? Ratepayers and consumers will want to be clear about those important factors. The Government should provide more information and greater certainty in relation to charges.

There must be ongoing and proper management of contaminated landfill sites. The Government should not wash its hands of the waste sector but must have a long-term plan for waste reduction. The Opposition will support the transaction involving the sale of the entity with capital requirements and capability of the private sector, provided that the Government has a long-term waste reduction strategy. The Opposition will be waiting for information on strategies that arise from the transaction and the potential opportunities that may be pursued by application of the proceeds. My colleague and the shadow Minister for Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability will deal with that aspect of the legislation in greater detail when the bill is debated in the upper House. Currently the Opposition is negotiating the form of words in which amendments will be presented in the Legislative Council. I foreshadow that the Opposition will move those amendments in the upper House after finalisation of their terms.

There are two amendments. The first amendment relates to the establishment of a trust account. This is to ensure that all proceeds received from the transaction are applied directly to a trust account and held to meet all existing and future liabilities associated with the business. If excess funds remain these can only be released for general budget purposes for amounts in excess of the residual liabilities. Those residual liabilities will be determined by the independent expert, to which we have alluded, at the point of transaction. The proposition is fairly simple: An account will be established, at the point of sale all future liabilities that occur through the transaction or those retained by the Government—the total liabilities across those two elements—will be monetised by an independent expert, and funds from the sale will be secured against those liabilities. That is essential. We are pleased that the Government has agreed to the amendment in principle, and we look forward to moving it in the upper House.

The second amendment relates to the overall lack of information about and strategy for this matter. We argue that on a timing to be determined, whether it be prior to the commencement of the transaction or at the 21482 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

earliest possible point, the Parliament should be furnished with a report detailing the intended consumer protection measures that will be put in place, which we have clearly spoken about, the advanced environmental outcomes that will be achieved, and the broad strategies to be employed to ensure the resolution of all competition issues. We understand that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will be signing off on the transaction. However, it is important to understand how the Government intends to make the sector competitive, as competition will ensure that rates remain as low as possible and consumers are protected. The last thing we want to do is hand over the business carte blanche to a private sector monopoly, which is in no-one's interests.

In conclusion, although the transaction provides the Treasurer with unfettered flexibility, the Liberal-Nationals Opposition has long supported and proposed the sale of this asset. So in many respects we are pleased that the Government has again adopted a sensible Liberal-Nationals policy, and the Minister should acknowledge that in his reply. This legislation will provide an opportunity to improve and grow the sector and facilitate waste reduction, which is ultimately what is driving it. At the same time we argue strongly that the amendments proposed and agreed to in principle by the Government will significantly enhance protections for the people of New South Wales and potential outcomes, and provide the Parliament with much more information about the transaction than has been provided by the Government to date. We are happy to move forward. We will continue to negotiate directly with the Government. In that context, the outcome of those negotiations will be the form of words that will be moved as an amendment in the upper House. Until that point we are happy to support the transaction.

Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.33 p.m.]: I support the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010. As some members in the House will recall, in late 2008 the Government announced its intention to investigate the sale of several transactions involving State-owned businesses, including NSW Lotteries and WSN Environmental Solutions. Only last week the Government successfully concluded a transaction process for NSW Lotteries, which delivered $1 billion to taxpayers. This was a tremendous result, and the Government should be commended for its strong financial management of the State and its ability to deliver such an impressive result. As I mentioned, in 2008 the Government also flagged the potential sale of the State-owned waste business, WSN. Since that time the Government has been working closely with its expert advisers on a comprehensive strategic review of WSN, which considered factors such as the suitability of a transfer to the private sector and the proposed transaction structure.

At the conclusion of this review the Government decided to proceed with the transaction and tabled this enabling legislation. The case for the sale of WSN is clear: There is no sound reason why this waste business should remain in government ownership. It is important to note that WSN operates in an increasingly competitive market along with private sector operators. Continued Government ownership of this business would expose taxpayers to ongoing commercial and financial risks. The Government strongly believes that the private sector is best placed to meet the needs of this changing industry, as demonstrated by the industry-wide move to alternative waste technology [AWT] facilities. AWT facilities play a critical role in diverting waste from landfills, and are at the heart of the global trend towards greater recycling and processing of waste.

WSN has taken a lead position in the development of AWTs. The first such facility was developed at Eastern Creek, which was Sydney's first AWT facility for household waste; the second, the Macarthur Resource Recovery Park, opened in 2008 and is Australia's largest fully integrated waste management site. However, the Government believes that the private sector is best placed to make the significant technology development and capital investment needed to meet the needs of this growing industry. This is an investment that the private sector is both willing and able to deliver. Another of the Government's key objectives in the sale of WSN is addressing the conflict as a result of the Government being both owner and regulator of this business. However, the House should note that WSN will continue to be subject to the same stringent government environmental regulations, regardless of who owns it.

The case for selling WSN is a strong one. It removes the exposure of taxpayers to the commercial risks associated with operating a government business in a competitive environment. It removes the need for the public purse to finance infrastructure developments which the private sector is willing and able to deliver, and it addresses the conflict inherent in the Government being both owner and regulator of this business. Finally, the proceeds from the sale of WSN Environmental Solutions will further strengthen the State's financial position by helping to retire public debt, as well as supporting the community's priorities in health, education and transport. I commend the bill to the House. 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21483

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (Castle Hill) [4.37 p.m.]: The Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010 seeks to establish the ground rules for selling off WSN Environmental Solutions, formerly Waste Services New South Wales. Waste Services New South Wales was created by the Greiner Government in 1992 to improve waste management in the Sydney region. At that time the waste industry had a particularly bad reputation, and some questionable practices were being undertaken. It was necessary to take over the local government operations to get some stability back into the industry. What was going on at the time was bad economically and bad for the environment. Things have certainly improved since then.

Waste Services New South Wales was corporatised in 2001, and that set the scene for today's mooted sale. WSN services more than 90 per cent of Sydney's population. Its only competitor for Sydney waste is Veolia, which has a landfill site at Woodlawn near Goulburn serviced by a waste transfer station at Auburn. Members may recall that we legislated to allow that waste transfer station to be set up, probably about eight or nine years ago. WSN currently operates four landfills, seven waste transfer stations—at Artarmon, Auburn, Belrose, Chullora, Rockdale, Ryde and Seven Hills—and two materials recycling facilities, at Chullora and Jacks Gully. Global Renewables opened an alternative waste technology plant at Eastern Creek in 2004, and there is another alternative waste technology plant at Jacks Gully. WSN used to operate a liquid waste treatment plant at Lidcombe—there was significant controversy surrounding that plant—but it was sold to Transpacific Industries in June 2005.

The Government first announced that it would investigate the possible sale of WSN in late 2008. However, we had first announced that we would sell WSN in early 2007. I can remember announcing part of our waste policy at a conference at Star City in 2005. WSN, in particular, phoned and asked for a copy of my speech within five minutes of its delivery. WSN wanted to know what we were proposing for it. We did not propose at that time that we would be selling it. We announced a number of other initiatives, some of which the Government has taken up subsequently—very poorly I might add—but the announcement of the sale of WSN was kept until shortly before the election, with the money to be hypothecated primarily to environmental issues.

In 2007-08 WSN made a pre-tax profit of $25.1 million, which was 94 per cent up on the previous year and 47 per cent ahead of the statement of corporate intent target. One would think that that was pretty good until one drilled down into the financial statements. That profit includes a one-off $13.837 million payment from Landcom as compensation for the early closure of the Jacks Gully putrescible waste landfill. The stench from that facility made it almost impossible to sell homes nearby. When one takes that out from the real underlying profit it was just $11.248 million—down nearly 25 per cent on the previous year's $14 million-odd.

The Government is talking about getting $400 million for WSN but that figure would seem to be grossly overstated given the size of the profit. Moreover, as anyone involved in the industry will advise, WSN has for years been underquoting on waste collection and recycling services and would be losing money on many of those tenders. I understand that recently WSN won one recycling tender then went to a private sector company and asked it to carry out the work for the same price! The company refused because it simply could not process the waste at the price that WSN had paid. Contracts also won by WSN at very low prices include a 15-year collection, recycling, and disposal contract with the Macarthur Region Organisation of Councils [MACROC] and a seven-year collection contract with Ryde City Council. The MACROC tender was 20 per cent under the competition, while industry believes the Ryde contract was subsidised to the tune of $21 million.

In 2007 we estimated the value of WSN at $215 million. Since then its profits have gone backwards and the company has installed a new $70 million alternative waste technology recycling plant at Jack's Gully, which I understand is not yet working properly. So what is the real value of WSN? It is anybody's guess, as the shadow Treasurer said, but $250-$300 million would be closer to the mark than the $400 million touted by the Government. A further issue that has already been referred to by the shadow Treasurer is the long-term liability of landfills. Government wants to sell the income generating parts of WSN while transferring assets such as the former toxic waste dump at Castlereagh and apparently other landfills to a new body to be called the Waste Assets Management Corporation.

The cost of remediating those sites could quite possibly exceed the total value of WSN, particularly as we now understand from this morning's Sydney Morning Herald—and that information was not made available to the Opposition—that the mega-tips at Eastern Creek and Lucas Heights will not be part of the sale. The Opposition had to get that important information which should have been part and parcel of the Government's agreement in principle speech per medium of the Sydney Morning Herald. That is disgraceful. 21484 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

The zinc processor Pasminco did something similar. It went broke some years ago and split into two bits—Zinifex, the income producing part of the company, and Pasminco. Shareholders ended up with absolutely nothing. That was one of the most disgraceful episodes in Australian corporate history. I cannot understand why some of the company directors were not charged by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission over that episode. Now the Government wants to do something very similar. Liabilities associated with leachate from those old landfills are very real and potentially could be ongoing for decades. The Government must come clean on how it intends to deal with those liabilities. Members can read the annual reports of WSN and confirm that WSN has been underproviding in its accounts for clean-up costs for many years. The member for Manly has referred to the real issue: Is the business to be sold as a whole or broken into parts? Our policy states:

A Coalition Government will break the Government's near-monopoly on putrescible waste in the Sydney region by selling WSN Environmental Services' transfer stations and landfills to the private sector. The corporation will be split into at least two parts to ensure competition and stimulate innovation and keep costs down. To maintain competition, we will legislate to ensure that no private company or individual can control more than 45 per cent of Sydney's putrescible waste stream in the future.

That effectively means that competition would have been ensured under our policy. I put it to the House that that is infinitely superior to what is being presented to it today. Under the Government's bill everything points towards a sale of the lot—waste transfer stations and the materials recovery facilities—as a single entity. That will have two major implications. We will exchange a public monopoly for a private monopoly. In my book the only thing that is worse than a public monopoly is a private monopoly. However, 10 per cent of Sydney waste will still go to Woodlawn. I presume that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is going to sign off on any sale but it may be sufficient for it to say that Veolia has control of 10 per cent of putrescible waste and will not take into account the fact that that waste has to be transported by train from the Auburn waste transfer station down to Woodlawn, which will obviously cost more. It would make it extremely hard for Veolia to compete against a private sector operator if that private sector operator had control of the other 90 per cent.

It will also reduce the potential field of bidders for the assets and therefore the price that would be realised for WSN. I have been speaking to some industry players in the past week who would be interested in bidding for several waste transfer stations but they do not want the lot. If potential bidders are removed from the equation then it is axiomatic one will end up realising less money for the sale of WSN. Ultimately, this sale should be about a value-for-money return to taxpayers, otherwise why sell off the assets, and about better environmental outcomes, that is, a reduction in waste going to landfill and an investment in alternative waste technology by the private sector. It really has not been spelt out how either of those goals will be achieved under the bill before the House.

Certainly, the Government's track record on waste management has been very poor. A couple of years ago it introduced a waste performance bonus—an idea stolen from the Coalition's waste policy, which I announced in 2005. The performance bonus is a complete sham and certainly not what I was proposing. Every one of the 51 councils in the greater metropolitan area in 2009 received the same payment of $2.39 per resident regardless of performance. Liverpool City Council, which recycled 14 per cent of its waste, received exactly the same payment per resident as Hunters Hill, which recycled 88 per cent. This is not what I call a performance bonus. In 2007-08 Cessnock City Council dumped almost twice as much waste in landfill as it did in 2005-06 but it still got a bonus, for underperforming.

The Government's target is to divert 66 per cent of municipal waste from landfill by 2014—that is, in four years' time—63 per cent of commercial and industrial waste and 76 per cent of construction and demolition waste. In 2004 it was diverting 39 per cent of municipal waste, 33 per cent of commercial and industrial waste and 75 per cent of construction and demolition waste. According to the 2009 state of the environment report it is still recycling just 41 per cent of municipal waste, that is, 2 per cent more than it was doing in 2004, while the 70 per cent of construction waste being recycled is less than the 75 per cent in 2004! That is extremely important given that construction and demolition make up the largest part of the waste stream.

The municipal waste, that is, putrescible waste, figures are also being fudged as much of the output from the U2R2 facility at Eastern Creek is still not commercial grade compost and is going to landfill. The process removes moisture from the waste so the mass of the waste is very significantly reduced, probably by about 80 per cent. So there is less waste going to landfill, but many of the toxic materials remain. According to the state of the environment report, Sydney is still dumping 4.5 million tonnes of waste in landfill. Why would the Government not continue to encourage that when every tonne that goes to landfill brings back $58.80 to State coffers? Now that the Government has extended the waste levy to the North Coast, Wollondilly and Blue 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21485

Mountains the Government will rake in an estimated $348 million this year, compared with just $105 million in 2004-05, but by 2012-13 the Government estimates that it will rake in a staggering $471 million—nearly half a billion dollars.

This is a government that is hooked on waste. No tax revenues in New South Wales have grown as much over the last six years as the waste levy. We really cannot believe the Government when it claims that the proposed sale of WSN is going to be an environmental measure. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the Government is not fair dinkum about helping councils recycle more—and certainly it is not with that waste performance bonus—if it is not fair dinkum about reducing waste going to landfill, it certainly will not be fair dinkum about getting a better deal for New South Wales taxpayers by selling off WSN.

Mr NICK LALICH (Cabramatta) [4.52 p.m.]: I support the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010. As the member for Wollongong has mentioned, one of the Government's key objectives in the sale of WSN is addressing the potential for conflict with the Government being the owner and regulator of this business. However, it is very important for the House to note and for the community to recognise that regulation of this industry will continue no matter who owns WSN. A privately owned WSN will continue to be subject to the same regulatory framework that applies to the waste industry as a whole.

It is a framework which, put simply, exists to ensure a healthy and clean environment. It achieves this by regulating pollution and other adverse environmental impacts that may result from waste activities and it uses a range of innovative tools and programs to mitigate pollution from waste disposal, improve resource recovery and ensure the appropriate disposal of harmful waste. Economic instruments such as the waste and environmental levy are also used to drive, for example, resource recovery from the waste stream. The regulatory framework is established by the protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and related regulations.

The transfer of WSN to a private operator will allow the Government to focus on the important regulation of this industry without the potential conflict through also being an owner and operator in this market. Over the past five years the Government has tightened the regulatory rules for waste compliance and strengthened the enforcement framework to help prevent non-compliance. Penalties in section 115 for disposing of waste unlawfully in a way that causes harm or likely harm to the environment are as high as $5 million for wilful offences by corporations and $1 million or seven years jail for wilful offences by individuals. In the case of negligence, the penalties are set as high as $2 million for corporations and $500,000 or four years gaol for individuals.

The Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water has a history of strong enforcement of the waste sector and is experienced in regulating both private and public sector operators. In the past financial year the department has completed a number of prosecutions and currently has more than 12 charges before the Land and Environment Court or local court in relation to facilities or activities awaiting determination. The department can also issue on-the-spot fines and has notice powers to ensure compliance by the waste sector. In recent years the department has required the immediate cessation of activities at a number of waste sites until they could operate lawfully or the site was closed. A key tool for ensuring protection of the environment by waste operators is the environment protection licence, which contains strict conditions for licensees. These licence conditions are actively enforced by the department.

The transfer of WSN to a private operator will also allow focus on developing the policy levers needed to help the Government achieve its objectives in waste reduction. In recent years the Government has strengthened the waste and environment levy to drive resource recovery and has provided a clear regulatory gateway to enable genuine resource recovery to flourish. The Government's waste reduction agenda is outlined in the waste avoidance and resource recovery strategy of 2007. The strategy has a number of features, which together are aimed at achieving the Government's goals of preventing and avoiding waste, increasing recovery and use of secondary materials, reducing toxicity in products and materials, and reducing litter and illegal dumping.

These are the issues and initiatives that the Government should focus on rather than the day-to-day operation of a business in a largely competitive commercial sector. When considering the bill members should remember that a privately owned WSN would be subject to the same stringent environmental regulations in the same way as it always has. The House has heard many other good reasons for transferring WSN to the private sector—for example, the further strengthening of the State's balance sheet, the removal from the public sector of 21486 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

the commercial risk of operating such a business and the transfer to the private sector of the substantial capital investment needed to ensure the business remains competitive. As is absolutely clear, WSN and the broader waste industry will continue to be regulated to ensure compliance with government policy.

As the mayor of Fairfield, my council uses WSN at Eastern Creek. We have a 20-year contract in place and we are quite happy with that contract. My only concern was that the transfer of WSN to the private sector may have interfered with our contract over 20 years—I think we have 15 or 16 years remaining—but I have been assured by the Treasurer that it will not and cannot be interfered with because it is a legally binding contract. I am hopeful that will remain the position. Fairfield City Council recycles 80 per cent of household waste through WSN at Eastern Creek. The Fairfield City Council was at the forefront and was the first council to get on board with WSN when it was established in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House and hope it will be supported in its entirety.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [4.57 p.m.]: I note that most of the contributions on this bill have related to the substance of the deal that the bill is contemplated to address. I want to restrict my comments to the substance of the bill. The bill is, on its face, a bill for an Act to provide for the transfer of the business of the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation, and for other purposes. In the overview on the first page of the first print of the bill it is suggested that the bill has detailed provisions dealing with the transfer of WSN employees and their rights and entitlements on transfer.

The undertakings, warranties, indemnities, guarantees or implied promises made in this bill to buyers, and especially to WSN employees, are not worth the paper they are written on. I make this point based on the provisions of the bill itself. Clause 13 refers to employee protection and points to schedule 4 as the place to find employee protection, but part 4—miscellaneous provisions—make it immediately apparent that any undertakings or implied promises made in this bill are not really intended to be binding on the Government. I refer to clause 21, "Extraterritorial operation of the Act", which states in subclause (1) that it is the intention of the Parliament that the operation of the Act should, as far as possible, include operation in relation to things situated inside or outside the territorial limits of the State. Obviously, whatever the intention of the Parliament might be, that may not have any legal force whatsoever.

Clause 22 refers to the construction of the Act and instruments so as not to exceed legislative power. This is a particularly interesting provision because it basically refers to the contra proferentem rule of legal construction, which says that if an instrument has a meaning that is vague or is open to a meaning that is not legally possible, it should be read down. This clause is saying that if that happens, if there is any valid application of the clause then that is what the Parliament meant it to mean. In other words, the bill has been written despite the fact the Government is unsure whether it has the legislative power to do what the bill says. It is a provision that says, "We don't actually know whether this bill is workable or legal but our intention is that if a bit of it is read down or struck out by the courts because it exceeds the legislative power of the Parliament of New South Wales, but there is a possible valid interpretation, we will give it that interpretation."

Clause 23 refers to the protection of contractual and other obligations. This is something that both employees and potential buyers should be very aware of—the caveat emptor principle. This clause applies to a range of matters including the operation of the Act, the transfer of the assets, entering into or performance of obligations under a transaction arrangement—that is a contract by a public sector agency—or a disclosure of information. Subclause (2) says that none of the matters or things to which this clause applies are to be regarded as a breach of contract or confidence or otherwise as a civil wrong, or a breach of any instrument, or giving rise to any right or remedy by a party to a contract. In other words, this seeks to limit the liability of the State in relation to any contracts entered into pursuant to the objects of the bill.

The extraordinary aspect of this part of the bill is to be found in clause 24, which relates to the non-payment of compensation. Subclause (1) says that compensation, which includes damages or any other form of monetary compensation, is not payable by or on behalf of the State—which means the Crown within the meaning of the Crown Proceedings Act 1988, and includes a public sector agency and an officer, employee or agent of the Crown or a public sector agency—because of the enactment or operation of the Act or for any consequence of that enactment or operation or because of any statement or conduct relating to the enactment of the Act. Subclause (2) says that it does not extend to compensation payable under a transaction arrangement.

Once a buyer has entered into a contract for the purchase of all or part of the assets being contemplated to be sold the compensation arrangements will prevail, but nothing else. Common law rights or rights under equity for compensation are specifically ruled out. Compensation is only payable under a transaction 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21487

arrangement. Whatever is said before a buyer enters into an arrangement, no compensation will be paid. In other words, if the Government or the Minister has said anything or made any representations they should not be believed until the buyer has a signed deal, because they will not be held to it and will not pay compensation in relation to it.

It reminds me of reading contracts for sale of business and contracts for sale of land when clients have said to me, "The agent said this" or "The agent said that". I used to say, "Don't worry about what the agent said because there is always a provision in the contract that says do not believe whatever representations have been made to you if they are not in the contract." The same applies here. Whatever the Government says in the course of negotiations or in the course of preparing the legislation cannot be relied upon to give rise to an action for compensation. On the face of it, in this bill the Government is saying, "We are going to do all these things, but don't believe a word we say because we won’t be held to it and we won't pay any damages in relation to the things we say."

I refer now to page 28 of the bill, schedule 4, clause 10, which relates to the operation of Commonwealth law. With the bill having said all these things about employee protection in schedule 4, clause 10 (1) says that a provision of schedule 4, including a provision to the extent that it imposes or continues a term or condition of employment, has no effect to the extent of any inconsistency with Federal law. The Government is saying all these things in the bill but if there is an inconsistency with Federal law, under the provisions of section 109 of the Constitution the Government will not be bound by any of it. This goes back to the issue of reading down the statute that I outlined as applying in clause 22. It reinforces my view that the substance of the bill is that whatever undertaking, warranties, indemnities or guarantees are given, they cannot be believed because the legislation says a person cannot apply for compensation on that basis.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [5.05 p.m.]: I support the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010. I note the object of the bill is to authorise and facilitate the transfer to the private sector of the assets, rights and liabilities of the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation, which is referred to as WSN. As has been said, the case for retaining WSN in Government ownership is a rather weak one. It is complicated by the overriding need to invest large sums of money to improve the efficiencies of an alternative waste management system. The transfer of WSN means public funds can be better directed to more core services. It allows the Government to focus on its important role in regulating this growing industry rather than also needing to concentrate on the day-to-day operations of the business itself.

There are a number of private sector players already operating competitively in the community that regularly participate in council tenders for either waste processing or waste collection. Interestingly, some councils have sought to band together to form regional groups and attract new entrants into the Sydney market to increase the competitive tension in the tender process even more. That is a good thing. A significant proportion of Sydneysiders already have their waste processed by private operators. By transferring WSN to a private operator, taxpayers will benefit in three main ways: first, by reducing their exposure to the commercial risk associated with the day-to-day operation of a business such as WSN; second, through the investment of proceeds in front-line services to make sure that we concentrate on priorities such as infrastructure; and, third, in transferring the significant technology and capital investment needed to keep WSN competitive from public to private finance.

I am glad to see the member for Ryde nodding his head while I am speaking. He does that whenever I speak because he knows that I am right and that I am on the money when I talk about these things because I am a member of a Government that has achieved huge things in this term of office. This is another step in making sure that we are able to provide the core services of government. I am serious about this. The member for Ryde does not appear to be that serious although he agrees with what I am saying.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Members on both sides of the House will address their comments through the Chair.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI: We know the private sector is both willing and able to provide waste management services and make the necessary investments to take this industry forward. These are operators who are subject to the same regulatory environment as WSN and work to achieve the Government's waste targets in the same way. It is clear that the waste sector already operates competitively and the case for continued Government participation, as I said before, is a weak one. In November 2008 the Government 21488 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

announced its intention to sell WSN as part of a program to transfer non-core government business to the private sector. That, in turn, will enable the Government to focus on front-line services for the benefit of the whole community.

The Government will continue to work hard to meet these challenges and to direct its attention to core services, for example, health, education and transport. While we can point to significant achievements and reforms over our term in government, the focus remains on how to continue to meet growing demands in these core services—an important point. Governments must meet those demands efficiently and to the level expected by the community. That means, for example, rolling out the Building the Education Revolution project, which this Government has been doing over the past 12 months or so to ensure that our schools receive the best. It also means rolling out great infrastructure projects that will improve public transport.

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: The CBD metro?

Mr FRANK TERENZINI: It means rolling out programs such as the Metropolitan Transport Plan to ensure that we have a long-term view, while taking care of immediate needs to ensure that commuters receive the best that governments can provide. This is another step towards that process which means continued improvements for our world-class health system and ensuring that we work together with the Federal Government to produce a world-class health system. Our health system is one of the best in the country. However, it is unsustainable because of the way in which it is being funded. Good governments ensure that they reorganise their priorities to direct attention to core services. That means working together with communities across the State to deal with catastrophic disasters such as droughts, floods, storms, and all those sorts of things. We must be financially equipped to deliver those services properly. Who will complain about that?

The Government must reorganise its priorities and be ready to meet the challenges with which it is faced after the occurrence of natural disasters such as these. I could speak in debate on these issues all afternoon. However, I think all members understand it is important to direct our services to core businesses. In my contribution today I simply reaffirm that the core business of this Government is to take care of core government services. This bill will ensure that we use taxpayers' money more effectively by regulating industry and, at the same time, directing money towards core services. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [5.12 p.m.]: In participating in debate on the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010, I will focus in particular on the waste and mismanagement of this Labor Government, of which there is plenty. Today I am pleased to speak in debate about better managing waste. In general terms the key components of the bill are, first, to transfer WSN to the private sector but to retain those risks and liabilities that the private sector does not want; second, to conduct the transaction through one of three methods—direct vesting of assets and liabilities, converting WSN to a Corporations Act 2001 company and transferring the shares, or establishing a new company; third, to establish the Waste Assets Management Corporation under control of the Treasurer to retain and manage sites that are not transferred, or sites that essentially the private sector does not want; and, fourth, to offer employees certain guarantees, including a three-year employment guarantee for permanent employees or the option to remain within the public sector.

I have listened to a number of Government speakers contributing to debate on this bill. As I will reiterate later, I am disappointed that the matters I raised earlier today in a private member's statement were not touched upon. I raised those matters earlier today to give the Government time within which to consider them. I look forward to hearing the Government commenting on issues that were raised earlier in debate, and I will reiterate them in case members were not listening. I also note that all Government speakers in debate today appeared to be right-wing Labor speakers. Where are the Labor left-wing opponents of privatisation when it comes to speaking in debate on this bill? It has not gone unnoticed that the right-wing of the Labor Party, in addition to rolling Nathan Rees, the former Premier, punished the member for Wallsend by removing her from her position when she spoke out against privatisation. It is not surprising that the rest of them are scared to voice in this Chamber what we know to be—

Mr Frank Terenzini: Point of order: I am aware that you give members a great deal of latitude in debate on these issues. However, even being as objective as I can be, the member is speaking outside the leave of the bill, which relates to waste. The member should be asked to speak to the leave of the bill.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I uphold the point of order. The member for Davidson will confine his remarks to the leave of the bill. 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21489

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: Left-wing members of the Labor Party wasted their opportunity to speak in debate about their opposition to privatisation. No left-wing members of the Labor Party have spoken in debate on this bill. Let me return to the more substantive parts of the bill. The bill reflects a lack of proper planning and transparency. This legislation is necessary because this Government has not invested in the future of Sydney and New South Wales. There is a lack of investment in alternative waste treatment technology, in innovation and in waste disposal resources, and there is a shortage of landfill facilities for the disposal of either landfill or other waste. This Government has not been able to meet that demand. I note that a rationale for sale—I do not disagree with that rationale—is the Government's conflict of interest as the owner and regulator of WSN.

In the past the Minister for the Environment failed to act properly on concerns that I raised in this place relating to WSN. I have placed on record those concerns. Under the potential structure that will remain after this sale of assets, or sale of WSN as an entity, that conflict might well remain depending on what parts of WSN remain within public hands. That concern has not necessarily been addressed. I support the amendments foreshadowed by the shadow Treasurer, which were capably outlined by him and, in particular, I support those relating to environmental outcomes, consumer protections and competition issues. I want to focus in particular on the provision for outstanding liabilities, which I understand has been agreed to in principle. That is why the private member's statement I made earlier today is particularly relevant.

The Belrose site, which is owned by WSN, has a long history of past problems and broken promises, which have been largely ignored by this State Labor Government despite the fact that they have been raised in this place on numerous occasions. This demonstrates the inherent conflict of interest of an owner and regulator of the site and of the business. I am pleased that in more recent times, in particular over the past year since the foreshadowed sale of WSN, a bit more progress has been made and that WSN has shown good faith in dealing with the local Belrose community, which I welcome.

Mr David Harris: A good Government listens.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: This is not a good Government that listens; it is a pragmatic and a cynical Government, as we see change only when it wants something. It is potentially flogging off these assets even though it is aware of the disruption to and the apparent problems on that site. There is no good will or good faith from this Government. WSN has demonstrated more of a willingness to discuss issues with the local Belrose community and of late outcomes have been more satisfactory. Earlier today I referred in my speech to two issues. I referred, first, to the offer to protect a valuable 10-hectare site for inclusion in an extended Garigal National Park. That valuable area of native bushland that is adjacent to Bare Creek should be preserved for all to enjoy in the future, providing an additional refuge and habitat for native animals close to suburbia within the Sydney metropolitan area. Under previous agreements with WSN, including for dumping of additional waste on the site, that land was protected and cannot be used for landfill; it is preserved in a natural bush state.

In this place through motions and other forms I have asked for a guarantee to ensure that offer is honoured and that the transfer of the land to the Garigal National Park is undertaken before WSN Environmental Solutions is sold or the assets are otherwise disposed of. I refer also to long-standing commitments, which have been compromised over the years, to return the landfill site to the community as recreational facilities. The site should have been closed in past years, but its use was extended on a number of occasions. If the Government's assets or WSN Environmental Solutions' assets are sold, control over that guarantee comes into question, particularly given the wording of clause 24 of the bill, which states:

(1) Compensation is not payable by or on behalf of the State:

(a) because of the enactment or operation of this Act, or for any consequence of that enactment or operation, or

(b) because of any statement or conduct relating to the enactment of this Act.

The unintended consequence may be to wash one's hands of commitments, obligations or other legal requirements. I ask that in good faith the Government's guarantee clearly indicate that those commitments to the long-suffering Belrose community are honoured. Understandably, having suffered for so many years regarding the use of the Belrose site, my local community is concerned that this bill may weaken their position and their rights. I implore the Government to make appropriate comment on those issues.

All stakeholders must be properly protected. Hopefully, under private sector ownership we will have better outcomes for the public, but local communities, employees, New South Wales taxpayers and those who legitimately have rights or expectations regarding liabilities need to be protected. Finally, I point out to the 21490 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

member for Cabramatta and Mayor of Fairfield that the compensation clause in this bill suggests that if something goes wrong in the servicing of his and other councils, no compensation will be available. I point out to him also that inherently when a private sector organisation is contracted or obliged to deliver services, the risk is increased over that under public ownership—even with this Government.

Mr NINOS KHOSHABA (Smithfield) [5.23 p.m.]: I support the Waste Recycling and Processing (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010. One of the key reasons for the Government's decision to transfer WSN Environmental Solutions to the private sector relates to trends in this growing industry. Gone are the days when waste was simply collected and buried in a landfill site. As our landfill sites diminish, this approach is just not sustainable. Consequently, the waste industry is now experiencing a rapid transformation from waste disposal to waste processing. This transformation is being driven by demands from local government, from the community and from business for a more sustainable approach to waste processing.

Councils and their communities want long-term solutions to deal with domestic waste, while businesses are much more aware of their environmental impacts and are keen to see their waste processed more responsibly. This has led to the development of alternate waste technology—or AWT—facilities, which play a critical role in diverting waste from landfill and providing recycling opportunities. Alternate waste technology involves the mechanical separation and recovery of recyclable material from waste, such as metals, plastics and paper, the extraction of organic materials for composting, such as food and garden waste, and in some instances includes the capturing of gas by-product for electricity generation.

Alternate waste technology facilities are at the heart of this new sustainable approach to waste, and WSN Environmental Solutions has been an industry leader in their development. This is demonstrated by the Macarthur Resource Recovery Park, which is Australia's largest fully integrated municipal waste management site, and the alternate waste technology facility at Eastern Creek. However, to keep pace with demand, significant and ongoing investments in infrastructure and technology will be needed and the Government believes strongly that this investment is best met by the private sector, which is willing and able to deliver the facilities the State needs. The development of alternate waste technologies is an essential part of the Government's strategy to divert waste from landfill because kerbside and commercial recycling programs are simply not enough to meet targets.

To help achieve these targets for municipal waste New South Wales needs to process and recover resources from the mixed household waste stream. This includes recyclables that do not make it to recycling bins and organic waste, which can be processed for either compost or green electricity. Process technologies can not only recover around 60 per cent of the mixed waste stream, but can also contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases that are emitted from organic waste in landfills. Currently four alternate waste technology facilities operate in New South Wales processing around 20 per cent of the State's mixed household waste; many more facilities are planned. The potential market for alternate waste technology facilities is potentially large, with the mixed waste stream in New South Wales alone accounting for more than three million tonnes per year.

To meet the Government's waste diversion targets and to have a real impact on greenhouse gas emissions, New South Wales will need considerable new infrastructure in the near term. Taxpayers should not have to bear the burden of these considerable investments when the waste industry is willing and able to meet this need. Nor should taxpayers be exposed to the commercial risks associated with building and operating alternate waste technology facilities. Given that WSN Environmental Solutions will continue to be subject to the same stringent environmental and planning regulations, the case for the ongoing State ownership of WSN environmental solutions is weak. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [5.27 p.m.]: Finally, the long overdue sale of waste recycling is close. Finally, the socialist delusion and dream of a former environment Minister for the State-owned WSN Environmental Solutions to lead the way and invest in waste management and all sorts of things throughout Asia is over. Finally the day has arrived when even this Government acknowledges that WSN Environmental Solutions is an embarrassment and a failure in the industry. The provision for future liabilities associated with the sale is recorded as $40 million, essentially to look after landfills. I find it extraordinary that the amount has reduced from $60 million given that under WSN Environmental Solutions landfill sites have increased and provisions should have been going up, not down.

When the sale documents are finalised it will be interesting to see whether the provision for future liabilities is only as low as $40 million when the activities of WSN Environmental Solutions suggest it could be 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21491

much higher. For example, the Menai and Lucas Heights sites are environmentally sensitive areas. The landfills were very badly done and elicited frequent adverse comments. My understanding is that as recently as last year the restoration of the Lucas Heights landfill alone was estimated to cost $39 million. How the Government could make provision for restoration work based on estimated costs of $40 million when a year or so ago Lucas Heights alone was estimated to involve $39 million beggars belief.

The employees information kit has been made available to the Opposition and indicates that the Government is expected to "retain and manage a number of sites that are currently part of WSN". In other words, the Government may not be able to sell eight sites: Eastern Creek, Belrose, Lucas Heights 1, Thornleigh, Merrylands, Grange Avenue, Castlereagh and Harringtons Quarry. Eight sites have been categorised by the Government as being so badly damaged and as involving liabilities so extensive that the private sector is not interested in acquiring them. But the question is: Are they the only sites that will not be sold? For example, the ArrowBio Plant at Jacks Gully is supposed to be the last word in environmental recycling. I attended the opening ceremony, which was several months late, and so did some local members.

As far as I know from responses to questions I kept asking, the ArrowBio Plant still is not fully operational. It was the first time in the world that ArrowBio, an Israeli company that operated a small pilot plant in Tel Aviv, was expected to produce anything like the scale of operation envisaged by the Government. By the end of 2008 ArrowBio still was not producing any sign of the world's leading-edge technology that it was supposed to be applying to reduce the quantity of waste going to landfills. How much is redeeming that plant worth? How much will the Government spend on managing ArrowBio and bringing it to a state so that it can be sold for better than scrap value? Let us hope that the Government can achieve a return on its investment and receive more than the plant's value as scrap. It was never clear that ArrowBio was going to work.

Another example is technology for recycling glass and changing it into paving stones. My research disclosed that the company involved was registered at a post box at Surfers Paradise. It is rumoured that the Government's foray in technological solutions has resulted in legal actions. I certainly met representative companies who claimed that they were successful in receiving out-of-court settlements. Those payments have not showed up in the books. There was always a reason given for why provision of the information had to be deferred. Goodness only knows what the final liability will be. How much did the Government expend on exploring the Chinese market? We will never know. Even the Government knows that it must not persist with its fantasy that WSN can be a market leader in New South Wales, let alone the world. I draw the attention of the House to the agreement in principle speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Miranda, when the bill was introduced:

While WSN has taken a lead position in the development of alternative waste technology facilities, the Government believes the private sector is best placed to make the significant investment that will need to be made over the coming years. Taxpayers will benefit by shifting the need for this additional investment from the public sector and the community as a whole will benefit through the investment of the sale proceeds in the priority areas of health, education and transport.

In other words, the agreement in principle speech acknowledges that all the investments in world-class technologies and experimental technologies are not working and that perhaps government-owned enterprises are not the best way of exploring technological advancements and creating a leading-edge recycling company. There is more evidence available than is necessary to prove that point. However, if more evidence is needed, I cite the example of the past five years. WSN returned a total dividend payment to the Government of $50 million, but at the end of 2007 the Government had to direct a $65 million top-up to WSN. WSN not only ran down its contingency fund, which it was obliged to keep topped up to meet future liabilities, but also could not make the company work even after receiving the financial top-up.

WSN paid a dividend, which was ridiculous because it was not making a profit, and ended up having to go cap in hand to the Government for a top-up payment. The amount that the company had spent on payment of dividends had to be returned because the company was in such dire straits. It seems extraordinary that employees will have all their entitlements guaranteed for three years, including sick leave, which is most unusual. There has been no preparedness on the part of the Government over the past three years and beyond to take any account of the incredible impost this company represents to the taxpayers of this State.

When this transaction is all done and dusted, we will be lucky if there is $20 profit to the State by the time liabilities are paid out and investments such as ArrowBio are paid off. As far as anybody can tell, ArrowBio has never worked, and God only knows at what cost. How ridiculous it was for the Government to invest at any point in ArrowBio's technology. ArrowBio's technology had never been tested in the world at a plant constructed on a commercial scale. Somehow the geniuses at WSN, who were all government 21492 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

appointments, thought they could do what the rest of the world could not. The New South Wales Government now finds itself in desperate straits. The original legislation to effect sale of the facility was very poorly drafted, and again the taxpayers of New South Wales were exposed to exorbitant costs. The original proposal for the sale was that anything that could not be sold would be retained by the Government and operated. The only items that would not be sold would be long-term liabilities that no private sector organisation would want to acquire.

I am very pleased about acceptance by the Government of the Opposition's proposed amendment to the legislation to ensure that all the proceeds of the sale will be deposited to a trust account to meet existing and future liabilities associated with WSN. If that does not happen, the Government will sell off the entity for the price of the house but not the mortgage and will use the proceeds of that sale to trot out a few election promises. The outcome will be that future governments and future taxpayers will pay for those liabilities. That proposal obviously was unacceptable. It was scandalously immoral as a method of privatisation and scandalously irresponsible as a way of treating future taxpayers of the State.

The second aspect of the legislation is the proposal to transact the sale without consideration being given to the form of the sale, which is seriously irresponsible. If the private sector had its way, there would be one monopolistic buyer owning all the land and being in a position to extract extortionate rents, as indeed it seemed WSN was planning to do in relation to councils that it had trapped into taking contracts. If the Government had the long-term interests of taxpayers of the State at heart, it would never have drafted legislation that would enable the company to be sold in whatever form the market dictated. Guarantees must be given that there will be competition between the various private sector owners, and that means that there must be more than one private sector operator. As even this Government would acknowledge, if competition does not exist, nor does innovation, efficiency and a decent deal for the taxpayers and ratepayers of the State.

It is very important that the Opposition's second proposal is accepted, which is that prior to the commencement of the transaction the New South Wales Parliament and the Government are satisfied that anti-competitive aspects of the transaction have been resolved and that future protection of the environment is assured. As many Opposition members have said, we cannot have an appallingly run public monopoly now replaced by a private one. It is with great delight that I, along with my colleagues, support the sale of WSN. We deplore the way the proposal was first presented to the House. We trust that the Government will listen carefully and take on board the Opposition's concerns. Finally, it is important to acknowledge that the crazy fantasy of WSN, the terrible fantasy of taking over the world's waste management and dominating this sector not only as a public provider but also as the adjudicator and judge, is finally over.

Mr ROBERT COOMBS (Swansea) [5.40 p.m.]: I support the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010. As my colleague the member for Miranda has already informed the House, significant investment will be needed for the further development of alternative waste treatment schemes, or AWTs as they are more commonly known. WSN Environmental Solutions has worked hard over the years to achieve its lead development position in AWTs. This is demonstrated by the facilities at Eastern Creek and the Macarthur Resource Recovery Park, which is Australia's largest fully integrated municipal resource recovery site. The park was developed for a regional grouping of councils in the growing region of south-west Sydney. These councils needed an integrated solution to deal with all their waste streams, to treat waste locally and to extract the highest possible resource value with minimal cost to their communities.

By adopting the principle of a closed loop system, WSN developed a number of different technologies and facilities on the one site to treat waste from about 100,000 households. This all occurs on a compact two-hectare site in the local area, designed to minimise the costs and environmental impacts of transport. The park is also designed to divert about 70 per cent of waste from landfill through a combination of recycling, composting of garden organics and mixed waste processing. Significantly, it captures 100 per cent of greenhouse gases, which provides enough to power its own operations and 1,700 homes with green energy. This is an excellent example of how technology can and does play a central role in helping to divert waste from landfill. This will become increasingly important as the amount of waste produced in New South Wales— currently well over three million tonnes per year—will continue to grow.

AWTs work by recovering a greater amount of resource from the general waste stream through a number of methods, including mechanical separation methods, which remove recyclables such as glass, plastic, metal and paper that are not separated at the kerb in household recycling bins. They also employ a number of different biological technologies that use natural processes to produce compost and in some cases capture the gas produced as waste breaks down. The captured gas has the dual impact of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21493

while at the same time generating electricity. Large-scale composting is also employed at some AWTs for garden and food waste to produce usable compost and soil conditioners. This method is used throughout the world and has the benefit of producing horticultural by-products to support agricultural industries.

AWTs can also employ mechanical biological treatments that, as the name suggests, combine both those treatments I have already discussed. This approach offers the most flexibility in the types of waste processed and offers the highest resource recovery. It is for this reason that these systems are increasingly used. The chief aim of the mechanical biological approach is to deal with each type of waste in such a way as to extract the maximum value. This is achieved by both removing recyclables from landfill and treating remaining organic waste to produce gas for electricity generation and horticultural by-products. This means that, depending on the waste composition and technology, about 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the waste is land filled, which is a remarkable achievement.

I could go on. There are a number of other methods, including thermal technologies and landfill treatments that I have not mentioned, and I am sure there will be more as developed nations around the world grapple with the issue of sustainable waste treatment. All the technologies I have mentioned today require substantial investment over time to ensure that AWTs reach their full potential. These are critical investments that the Government believes should be met by the private sector rather than by public financing. This allows the Government to focus on the necessary policy levers to achieve its waste objectives—in essence, to protect the environment and process the waste stream in a sustainable way. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [5.46 p.m.]: As members know, I am 100 per cent for the Tweed. I am also 100 per cent for the fine people of New South Wales. I would hazard a guess that members on both sides of the House support recycling, a green environment and any initiatives we can take to achieve that, not only for ourselves but also for future generations. However, I cannot support the way the Government, in trying to achieve that, is selling off public assets for its own gain, which may leave a fairly large debt for future generations to pay. In addressing the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010, I shall detail a few key points. The purpose of the bill is to authorise and facilitate the transfer to the private sector of the assets, rights and liabilities of the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation, commonly known as WSN Environmental Solutions.

To give some background, WSN was formed by combining local government landfill operations, and was corporatised in 2001. WSN owns and operates landfills and kerbside waste collection, provides waste management services and conducts research into alternative technologies. Currently, it employs 335 people. Revenue in 2007-08, including levies, was $190 million and the dividend in 2007-08 was $4.8 million. The Government confirmed its intention to sell WSN in the November 2008 mini-budget. I should add that this transaction was also a Liberal-Nationals policy. The legislation provides the Treasurer with incredible flexibility to execute this sale under almost any structure or terms. It is clear that the remaining structural impediments to the sale in this legislation are broad ranging to enable the Treasurer to meet any difficulties he may encounter.

In general terms, the key element is the transfer of WSN to the private sector but the retention of all the risks and liabilities the private sector does not want. In other words, the Government is selling off WSN services but the liabilities and any future problems with the Environment Protection Authority in terms of the landfills et cetera will remain with taxpayers—the working mums and dads of New South Wales, including those in the fine place of the Tweed. In other words, the Government will maximise the sale price but the mums and dads will be left holding the financial can. The downstream costs could be much greater than the sale price. It might be a quick fix for the Government but it could impose long-term pain on taxpayers. The legislation also establishes the Waste Assets Management Corporation, under the control of the Treasurer, to retain and manage sites that are not transferred. A general manager and staff will be appointed to the corporation.

A number of arguments can be mounted in support of the passage of this legislation, including that the industry is capable of being fully serviced by the private sector. However, the member for Goulburn referred to the problems that arise from a monopoly. A single supplier could increase charges and consumers would have no choice but to pay them, because we all produce waste. Safeguards have been included in other legislation and a classic example—which is particularly relevant to my electorate of Tweed—is the legislation designed to facilitate the proposed sale of electricity generation plants. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, an independent body, would have governed future electricity charges. In recent times the tribunal has increased public transport fares by 40 per cent or 50 per cent and over the past two years it has increased the price of electricity by 40 per cent. Various media reports suggest that it will soon increase it by another 20 per cent. 21494 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

What do I tell the hardworking mums and dads of the Tweed about future price increases imposed by monopolies involved not only in electricity but also in rubbish? Do I tell them that an independent tribunal that is not influenced by the Government will increase prices so that the Government can get a better price for WSN Environmental Solutions? I believe that this legislation will allow the Treasurer to do that. The real sting in the tail of this legislation is that the environmental impact of landfill sites will be picked up by future generations of taxpayers. It is clear that if the Government retains all the risks and liabilities it could be subject to residual financial exposure, which could adversely impact taxpayers. The Opposition has asked the Treasurer to have an independent review undertaken to establish what the liability might be and to suggest what should be done to mitigate it.

Mr David Harris: What is your answer?

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: The Opposition's plan is simple. We will move two amendments, one of which will ensure that all the proceeds of the sale are directly applied to a trust fund and held to meet all existing and future liabilities associated with the business. If excess funds remain they should be released only for general budget purposes upon confirmation by the Auditor-General—not the Treasurer—that all outstanding liabilities have been extinguished. That amendment is commonsense. If there is to be a liability we should put money aside to cover it. Once it is extinguished, the money could then be used. Of course, that provision is not included in the Government's legislation.

The second amendment provides that prior to the commencement of the transaction, which must be vetted by the Environment Protection Authority, the Parliament must be furnished with a report detailing the intended consumer protection measures that will be put in place, the enhanced environmental outcomes that will be achieved and broad strategies that will be employed to ensure the resolution of all competition issues. They are key amendments and they are what the working mums and dads ask for time and again. The Government should demonstrate some commonsense and, for once, protect taxpayers. We do not want a continuation of the mismanagement displayed by members opposite.

They cannot argue against these amendments because they are commonsense. I do not hold out much hope because in the short time that I have been in this place I have noticed that commonsense is in fairly short supply. The Opposition will argue strongly in support of the amendments and looks forward to hearing the Government's response. I will not oppose this legislation but I will support the adoption of the Opposition's amendments. However, I know that the Government will not support them because they will prevent members opposite getting their hands on the money, as happened with the sale of NSW Lotteries. The Treasurer has been in charge of many great projects in this State, for example, the sale of licences for Star City Casino. He did such a good job that the casino's share price sharply increased after his announcement.

Mr David Harris: He wasn't the Treasurer then.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: We have had a long and illustrious line of Treasurers. What about the Treasurer's decision on the Cross City Tunnel and the black hole that that created?

Mr David Harris: He wasn't the Treasurer then.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: What about the current Treasurer's decision on the CBD metro, which has resulted in a $330 million loss for taxpayers? The Treasurer often comes up with great ideas, but they eventually end up hurting the taxpayers of this State. I am very proud of members on this side of the House because we look after the working mums and dads of New South Wales and we are concerned about the cost of living and bringing up a family in this fine State. It is about time that members opposite applied a bit of commonsense. If they did they would have the respect of local communities. Once again, I am 100 per cent for the Tweed.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.55 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members representing the electorates of Manly, Castle Hill, Pittwater, Davidson, Goulburn, Tweed, Wollongong, Fairfield, Maitland, Smithfield and Swansea for their contributions to this debate. The Parliamentary Secretary outlined that the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation, which trades as WSN Environmental Solutions, operates a State-owned waste collection and processing business. The purpose of the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010 is to allow the Government to transfer WSN to the private sector. The Government's decision to proceed with the transaction followed a comprehensive strategic review that considered factors such as the performance and readiness of the business, market conditions and 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21495

transaction structure. I note that the Opposition supports the legislation and that it will move amendments in the upper House. I also welcome the fact that the Opposition is working in a cooperative way with the Government on those amendments.

I will now address a few of the points raised by Opposition members. The member for Manly, the member for Castle Hill and other members raised the issue of retained sites. The Government has developed a strategy that identifies certain sites that should be retained when WSN is transferred to the private sector. These include landfill sites that are closed or that are coming to the end of their operational life. The associated rehabilitation costs of these sites are identified in the normal course of business and will be managed in accordance with strict legal and environmental requirements. Similar transactions in Australia and overseas have shown that if legacy sites such as these are included in a transaction purchasers heavily discount their bids or are unwilling to participate. A purchaser may also seek an uncapped and untimed indemnity for such sites. Such a reduction in the bid price is likely to be far greater than the rehabilitation costs, and the Government has structured the transaction accordingly.

Post-closure rehabilitation and maintenance will be managed by a new statutory corporation—the Waste Assets Management Corporation [WAMC]. The WAMC will make available its remaining landfill space to the purchaser of WSN and will generate revenue accordingly. That revenue can be used for ongoing operating costs and rehabilitation. Provision for the estimated liabilities has also been made to rehabilitate and maintain landfill sites to meet environmental standards. A review of the estimated rehabilitation costs is carried out by WSN annually and an external review will be undertaken by an independent expert at least every three years. The WAMC will continue to manage the sites retained by the Government in the same manner.

The member for Pittwater raised the issue of powers under the Act. The bill exists for the one-off purpose of authorising the transfer of WSN to the private sector. The powers in the bill have been carefully crafted to achieve this purpose and it does not seek to rewrite or override laws for any ancillary purpose. The bill provides certainty that the transfer can be implemented as the Government has announced. That certainty is necessary to maximise the benefits of the transaction for the people of New South Wales.

Further, the member for Manly and the member for Pittwater asked questions about the Treasurer's powers. The powers in the bill have been carefully limited and can be used only to facilitate the authorised transfer of WSN to the private sector. The bill allows for flexibility in the transaction process and provides certainty that the transaction can be implemented. Flexibility and certainty in implementation are needed to maximise the benefits of the transaction for the people of New South Wales. Facilitative powers such as those in the bill are common to special purpose legislation like this, such as the lotteries transaction. Just like State-owned businesses, the new private operator of NSW Lotteries will be fully subject to the Trade Practices Act and oversight by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC].

The member for Manly and other members referred to competition. WSN operates in an increasingly competitive market, along with private sector operators. Recently there has been an increase in demand for alternative waste technology facilities that provide an alternative to traditional landfill disposal. Any sale will, of course, be subject to approval by the ACCC. The Government recognises the vital role the ACCC plays in ensuring that this country's waste management industry has competitive outcomes for all Australians. The Government has written to the ACCC and is discussing the role the ACCC will play in relation to the transaction.

The Treasurer has outlined that the sale of WSN Environmental Solutions will strengthen the State's balance sheet and that public funds can be better directed to front-line infrastructure. WSN Environmental Solutions operates in an increasingly competitive market along with private sector operators. There is also increasing demand for the development of alternative waste technology [AWT] facilities that play a critical role in diverting waste from landfills. WSN Environmental Solutions has taken a lead position in the development of AWT facilities, but the Government believes the private sector is best placed to make the ongoing technology development and capital investment needed in this growing industry.

The proposed sale of WSN Environmental Solutions would also address the conflict between the Government being both owner and regulator of the business. WSN Environmental Solutions will continue to be managed in accordance with strict environmental regulations to minimise any impacts on surrounding communities. As has been mentioned, a key part of this bill relates to employee protections for those currently employed by WSN. The bill authorises the transfer of employees to the private sector and the continuation of 21496 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

their existing leave and superannuation entitlements, as well as a three-year employment guarantee for permanent employees. Temporary employees will receive a guarantee of three years or to the end of their fixed term, whichever occurs first.

The bill empowers the Treasurer to provide transfer payments to those employees who choose to move across to the private sector. The bill also includes a provision to allow permanent and temporary WSN employees to remain with the public sector if that is their preference. The fair and equitable treatment of WSN Environmental Solutions employees will continue to be an important consideration for government as this transaction progresses. The Government and WSN Environmental Solutions will also ensure that our local government stakeholders are kept up to date. Local government is an important stakeholder to this business, as several councils across Sydney regulate waste facilities under local environment plans, or have contractual relations with WSN Environmental Solutions for the collection and treatment of household waste.

The new owner will be required to continue to engage with the local community via the existing community advisory committees at the sites that it acquires. The Waste Assets Management Corporation will continue to engage with the local community via existing community advisory committees at the sites that are retained by the Government. It is important that the final outcome of the sale is also in the best interests of all stakeholders. The Government is committed to delivering good financial management to the people of New South Wales and this decision is another example of how non-core assets can be divested and the proceeds used to improve the State's balance sheet and support front-line infrastructure and services for New South Wales residents.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Passing of the Bill

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

HISTORIC HOUSES AMENDMENT (THROSBY PARK HISTORIC SITE) BILL 2009

Agreement in Principle

Mr PHILLIP COSTA (Wollondilly—Minister for Water, and Minister for Corrective Services) [6.05 p.m.], on behalf of Ms Carmel Tebbutt: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

The transfer of Throsby Park Historic Site to the Historic Houses Trust will bolster its status as a living heritage place. Throsby Park is located on the outskirts of Moss Vale. It was one of the first properties in the Southern Highlands, helping to open up settlement of the region. Throsby Park is an excellent example of early colonial Australia, containing a Georgian house built in the 1830s and a small cottage, furnished with a number of period pieces associated with the Throsby family. The property was granted to Dr Charles Throsby in 1819 by Governor Macquarie and developed by his prominent nephew Charles into a large, successful commercial mixed farm, which supported virtually every household and building requirement on the property.

The Historic Houses Amendment (Throsby Park Historic Site) Bill 2009 will revoke the site from reservation as an historic site under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, and will vest the land with the Historic Houses Trust. It will also amend the Historic Houses Act to prevent the site from being sold without an Act of Parliament, thus ensuring that this significant heritage site will remain in public ownership in perpetuity. This level of protection mirrors that afforded by the National Parks and Wildlife Act. The Historic Houses Trust is a statutory authority within Communities NSW and was established in 1980 to manage, conserve and interpret historic buildings and places. It currently manages 14 properties, including houses, public buildings, gardens and parklands, and holds extensive heritage collections. The trust has world-class expertise in areas such as building conservation, architecture, social history research and the management of historic gardens and interiors.

The bill will ensure that Throsby Park is managed by the organisation that is best equipped to manage the site for its most appropriate use, while also ensuring that its heritage values are protected. Throsby Park 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21497

Historic Site was reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act in 1975. At that time the estate was run down and beyond the means of the Throsby family to maintain. The Throsby family donated the site to the Government so that its values could be protected, and it was agreed that one family member, Miss Del Throsby, could remain living on the site. We thank the Throsby family for its very generous donation. Since this time the Heritage Act has commenced and the Historic Houses Trust has been established. This provides a more appropriate conservation framework for grand historic houses such as Throsby Park. I know the region well and it is certainly a grand historic house. Sadly, Miss Throsby died in 2006.

After thorough consideration of a range of possible management approaches the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water and the Historic Houses Trust have agreed that a long-term residential lease would provide the best and most cost-effective management option to conserve the site's State significant heritage values. The trust will manage the site under its Endangered Houses Fund. The Endangered Houses Fund is a revolving fund initiative that is used to acquire historic buildings then conserve and protect them before putting them on the market for sale or as long-term leases, which will be the case for Throsby Park.

To ensure that the public will continue to have the opportunity to appreciate the historic heritage values of the Throsby Park site the trust will put conditions in the lease to ensure that some form of regular public access is provided as part of any leasing arrangements, as determined by the Historic Houses Trust. Throsby Park is listed on the New South Wales Heritage Register and is therefore protected under the terms of the Heritage Act. It gives me great pleasure to move that this bill be agreed to in principle. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [6.09 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I follow the Minister to speak on the Historic Houses Amendment (Throsby Park Historic Site) Bill 2009. The aim of the bill is to amend the Historic Houses Act 1980 to include the Throsby Park historic site. In doing so, it revokes the reservation of the Throsby Park historic site under the National Parks and Wildlife Act and invests the site, including all rights, assets and liabilities of the Crown relating to the site, in the Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales.

It further ensures that the trust cannot sell or exchange the whole or any part of the site, except that authorised by an Act of Parliament. Further, the bill provides that a lease or licence granted by the trust must not have a term that exceeds 99 years, including any further term that may be granted under an option in respect of the lease or licence. As the Minister stated, the house on the Throsby Park historic site is quite significant. I commend the Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales for the marvellous job it does in preserving our valuable heritage. It is not often lauded, but I know the amount of passion that organisation has in protecting these assets and enabling them to prosper.

Throsby Park was established in 1834 by Charles Throsby on land granted in 1819 by Governor Macquarie. I remind the House that this is Governor Macquarie's bicentenary year. I do not think we have ever seen in this State a more wonderful administrator and someone with the vision and leadership shown by Governor Macquarie. Throsby Park is situated on 74 hectares on the outskirts of Moss Vale in the Southern Highlands and is very much a symbol of early colonial Australia, being one of the first properties in the region, opening up settlement into the Southern Highlands. It encompasses the Georgian Throsby House, home to five generations of the Throsby family. Over the years it has been extended to its present size of some 27 rooms—

Mr Phillip Costa: It is big.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: —most of which are still furnished with Throsby family furniture. As the Minister correctly points out, 27 rooms are a lot to clean. Other buildings on the site include its associated farm buildings, the former barn, flour mill, the original stables, Gundagai Cottage and Christ Church. The site also includes archaeological features, a garden, orchard and farm areas and a large number of heritage items. Until she died on 1 July 2006, Del Throsby, who was a direct descendant of Dr Charles Throsby, resided on the property, in the rear section of the house, following its purchase by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service in 1975. Del ran the Throsby Park Riding School, which was established in 1934. She passed away in the paddock feeding her much-loved English riding pony, Peter. Del's death ended six generations of Throsbys living at Throsby Park.

Throsby Park is currently listed on the National Estate, National Trust and New South Wales Heritage registers. The grounds are open for inspection, but appointments must be arranged by calling the National Parks and Wildlife Service to inspect the interior. Amending the Historic Houses Act 1980 to include Throsby Park 21498 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

historic site will mean, as the Minister stated, that the site will be managed under the Endangered Houses Fund. This fund provides a more appropriate conservation framework and has a greater range of expertise relevant to the care of a grand house such as Throsby Park. The Endangered Houses Fund is a revolving fund initiative that is used to acquire historic buildings and conserve and protect them before putting them on the market, either for sale or as long-term leases. The long-term lease is what will occur in the case of Throsby Park. There is also a large and varied collection associated with the site, which the Historic Houses Trust is better equipped to manage.

Before coming to the House we undertook consultation with the Historic Houses Trust, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the wonderful member for Goulburn, Pru Goward, and the Friends of Throsby Park. All groups are in favour of this amendment to the legislation. By passing this legislation we will pass on this wonderful building, its memories and its collections to future generations. The Opposition will not oppose the bill.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.14 p.m.]: I am excited to support the Historic Houses Amendment (Throsby Park Historic Site) Bill 2009, which will revoke Throsby Park from reservation as an historic site under the National Parks and Wildlife Act and transfer the ownership of and responsibility for the site to the Historic Houses Trust. I must say from the outset what a wonderful job the Historic Houses Trust does—an outstanding job. It has been doing a great job for almost three decades. It started with a portfolio of, I think, one house and now has a substantial number. For a long time it was under the directorship of its former chief executive officer, Peter Watts, who retired last year. Peter Watts now happens to be the chairman of the National Arts School Board of which I am also a member. The chairperson of the Historic Houses Trust, if I remember rightly, was Jill Wran. Those people have done a marvellous job; I must put that on record. The current chief executive officer of the trust is Kate Clark and she is also doing a tremendous job. She is also a member of the Macquarie 2010 Bicentenary Commemoration Committee.

The legislation will ensure that Throsby Park is managed by the organisation that is best equipped to manage the site for its most appropriate use—that is, under a long-term residential lease—while also ensuring that its heritage values are protected. It outlines the specific functions of the Historic Houses Trust that preserve some of our most historic places so that they are capable of having residents—in this case, with residential leases—and become living museums; museums of the past and of the future. Throsby Park historic site is located on the outskirts of Moss Vale in the Southern Highlands, about 140 kilometres from Sydney. It is a lovely drive from Sydney. I commend it to anybody wanting to go on a Sunday picnic. It is an ideal, relaxing way to unwind on a Sunday. I recommend it enormously.

The site is of State and regional cultural heritage significance and is listed on the registers of the National Estate and National Trust, as well as on the State Heritage Register. It is a rare surviving property that has a sense of continuity from its early colonial origins. The site consists of Throsby Park House, a furnished Georgian house built in 1834. Very few Georgian houses are left in New South Wales. It should be recognised that Georgian houses were the first prominent type of architecture in this State. Due to their age, a number of these beautiful mansions have disappeared over the years, so it is important that we preserve any example of Georgian architecture we have left in this State. It is great to think we still have this beautiful building, which was built in 1834. It is made of sandstone and brick, and has a large veranda, attics and a cellar, with a sandstone flagged courtyard and a water tank at its centre.

The site also contains Throsby Cottage, a weatherboard clad cottage, and associated buildings and gardens. It was the original dwelling, built in the early 1820s, constructed prior to the main house. Why are the 1820s important? It is because the 1820s were the start of the important era of Lachlan Macquarie, the fifth Governor of New South Wales and a man of enormous vision as a builder, planner, administrator and governor, who had a great concept for the development of this colony. He transformed it from a colony of convicts into a colony that was the embryo of a new country. Lachlan Macquarie was the first person to use the term "Australia" in official documentation, and it is wonderful to think we are preserving a site that dates back to his time. The house contains furniture and items associated with the Throsby family that are rare and representative of the period. I understand that there are also archaeological deposits on the site. It also contains Throsby Cottage.

Dr Charles Throsby was born in England and moved to Australia in 1802, the very early days of our colony. He was a naval surgeon, an explorer, a magistrate and a member of the Legislative Council. The land currently known as Throsby Park Historic Site was granted to him by Governor Macquarie in 1819, nine years after Lachlan Macquarie was sworn in as Governor of New South Wales and well into his period of 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21499

administration as the fifth Governor of the State. The land was granted to Dr Throsby in appreciation of his services to the colony. His prominent nephew Charles Throsby built Throsby Cottage and the main house. Prior to that Dr Throsby had built a colonial Georgian house known as "Glenfield", near Liverpool. "Glenfield" has recently been leased pending transfer to the Historic Houses Trust to be conserved through the trust's Endangered Houses Fund.

Throsby Park Historic Site was acquired by the New South Wales Government and reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act in 1975. The estate was run down and beyond the means of the Throsby family to maintain. As part of the purchase of the site, the State Government agreed that Miss Del Throsby and her mother could remain living on the site. This agreement gave rise to significant management constraints for the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Sadly, Mrs Throsby died in 1977 and Del Throsby passed away in June 2006, thus ending six generations of the Throsby family's occupation of Throsby Park, one of the longest occupations of a residence by any one family in the history of this country. Miss Del Throsby was best known for running the Throsby Park Riding School, which was established in 1934.

Since the site was acquired, the National Parks and Wildlife Service has undertaken extensive restoration work on the historic buildings at a total cost of more than $2 million, and professionally managed the site for more than 30 years. The works included major structural works, such as reinforcement of the roof and wall underpinning, as well as repairs to internal floors, walls and ceilings, and electrical rewiring. The Historic Houses Trust was created in 1980 to manage, conserve and interpret historic buildings and places. It is a specialist organisation with expertise in a range of complementary fields, including building conservation, social history research, architecture, historic gardens, historic interiors and historic site management.

I commend members on both sides of the House to obtain a copy of the events booklet that is published each year by the Historic Houses Trust; the events really are very exciting. I have had a wonderful time over the years attending one or other of the events organised by the Historic Houses Trust and seeing the tremendous unfolding of so much of our history of the past 200 years. I also commend to members and the public the monthly booklet Insights, which contains wonderful references to our local history.

The trust has an international standing in the conservation and interpretation of historic buildings and places. Its philosophy is to protect a range of properties that is representative of different periods, social cultures and architectural styles, and to manage museums that are relevant to contemporary society. It currently manages 12 properties as museums, including Hyde Park Barracks, which is situated very close to Parliament House; Elizabeth Farm; the Museum of Sydney, a wonderful museum and showcase of our history; Government House, which has been host to more than two million visitors since it was opened to the general public; Rouse Hill House in my electorate of Riverstone, which is a wonderful place where the Historic Houses Trust is doing extraordinary work, building up a room for members of the public to receive instruction, similar to a lecture theatre, revamping Rouse Hill House and transferring the main gates to Windsor Road opposite Annangrove Road, generally making it a real showcase for Sydney's north-west and for anyone who has an interest in the history of this State and nation; and Vaucluse House.

The trust also runs the Endangered Houses Fund from funds raised from the private sector to protect historical places as living places. This revolving fund is used to acquire historic buildings, and to conserve and protect them before putting them on the market either for sale or as long-term leases. Funds from the sale or lease of these properties go back into the Endangered Houses Fund. In this way heritage is protected through adaptive reuse, an alternative that is far less costly than establishing museums. This means that more heritage is able to be protected over time.

Reservation of Throsby Park Historic Site in 1975 preceded both the Heritage Act 1977 and the formation of the Historic Houses Trust, which was established by the Historic Houses Act 1980. The only option to protect the value of the site at that time was to reserve it under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. We have moved on from that, and that is wonderful. I commend the Minister for Water, who was the Minister responsible at the time, for this wonderful achievement. While the National Parks and Wildlife Service has a mandate and a role to protect a large range of the State's historic heritage, the trust has a greater range of specialised skills and resources to maintain the value of a historic house site such as Throsby Park. Given that the best use of the site is a long-term lease with heritage conservation, the trust through its Endangered Houses Fund is the organisation best placed to manage the site in the overwhelming interests of the preservation of history and access by the general public to the site.

It should be noted that this would not be the first such transfer. Similar transfers occurred when the Historic Houses Trust was established in 1980. Vaucluse House, now managed by the trust as one of its house 21500 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

museums, was previously reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act as part of the Sydney Harbour National Park and was then transferred to the Historic Houses Trust. This is wonderful legislation and a great opportunity to observe and preserve part of our living history. I emphasise that this is part of our living history, with six generations of a family having resided at Throsby Park. Now that it has passed to the hands of the State it is important that we maintain and preserve it not merely as something that belonged to the past but as something from the past that has an enduring relevance to the present and the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [6.28 p.m.]: In my capacity as the member for Goulburn I welcome the Historic Houses Amendment (Throsby Park Historic Site) Bill 2009. The electorate of Goulburn, the Southern Highlands and the Goulburn area, is resplendent with historic houses. As we all know, the difficulty is maintaining and preserving them, and stopping them from falling down. Without an unlimited budget from the State, one option is to allow such properties to be managed and preserved by tenants once they pass to the State, as this one has, and as part of that arrangement to allow the public occasional access to the property. In this instance that seems to be a very worthwhile solution.

The previous speaker talked about the pleasant drive to the Southern Highlands, but one does not have to travel to Throsby Park to enjoy such architecture. At Berrima, which is the most intact Georgian village on Australia's mainland, a marvellous opportunity presents for one to see what can be done by community organisations working very hard as volunteers—and very well researched volunteers—to preserve and maintain the buildings, the landscape, the streetscape and the general layout of the village. Of course, it is not always possible to turn every house into a museum, nor is it desirable. One of the features of these houses, as the British and Europeans would confirm, is that they can be occupied and lived in as real places by real people for hundreds of years, thus demonstrating the technology, architecture and building techniques of the day and in some way preserving the lifestyles that go with the layouts of those houses.

As the member for Goulburn, I am delighted to welcome and support this bill. It is an important step forward for Throsby Park. So often we see these sites in such states of disrepair that the cost to restore them is so prohibitive that no-one is prepared to take on the projects. The houses then become the responsibility of a trust or council, neither of which has the money to restore them. Eventually the buildings crumble to dust. That is not desirable in a country as young and with so little history as ours. The bill is part of the solution to preserving our heritage effectively and efficiently, so it is a very good outcome. Now that this wonderful property will be restored, preserved and open to the public on various occasions, I look forward to being able to inspect it.

Mr Phillip Costa: It is a beautiful property.

Ms PRU GOWARD: As the Minister says, it is a beautiful property, and it is representative of the Georgian and Regency period that made Australia.

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) [6.31 p.m.]: The Historic Houses Amendment (Throsby Park Historic Site) Bill 2009 represents a new way forward for Throsby Park that builds on the excellent restoration works undertaken by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. It will enable the best use of the site in terms of protecting its significant heritage values while also ensuring that it will be publicly owned in perpetuity, with opportunities for public access and appreciation. The bill revokes Throsby Park, a significant heritage property in the Southern Highlands, from reservation under the National Parks and Wildlife Act and transfers it to the Historic Houses Trust.

Interestingly, descendents of the Throsby family continued to reside at Throsby Park until June 2006. For the first time we have the opportunity to consider all options for the future management of Throsby Park. After thorough consideration, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Historic Houses Trust have agreed that the best way to protect the heritage values of the site is through adaptive reuse as a private residence, managed through a long-term lease with appropriate conditions. While the National Parks and Wildlife Service has a mandate and role in the protection of a large range of the State's historic heritage, the Historic Houses Trust has a greater range of specialised skills and resources to maintain the values of an historic house site such as Throsby Park.

The Historic Houses Trust will manage the property under its Endangered Houses Fund, which is a proven and cost-effective way of protecting significant heritage buildings and places through adaptive reuse that, in this case, will also allow public access and appreciation. The bill provides that the site will remain in 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21501

public ownership. The Historic Houses Trust will be prevented from selling any part of the site without an Act of Parliament. This mirrors the level of protection afforded by the National Parks and Wildlife Act and will ensure that the property will not lose its status as a significant, publicly owned, heritage asset. To ensure continued public access to appreciate the historic heritage of the site, the long-term residential lease will include conditions requiring that Throsby Park be open for public access and appreciation most likely for a couple of weekends a year. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PHILLIP COSTA (Wollondilly—Minister for Water, and Minister for Corrective Services) [6.34 p.m.], in reply: It gives me great pleasure to speak in reply on this important bill, the Historic Houses Amendment (Throsby Park Historic Site) Bill 2009. The value of the long-term protection of this outstanding example of early Australian cultural and agricultural values has been well presented by the members for Lane Cove, Riverstone, Goulburn and Wallsend, and I thank them for their contributions. The bill will ensure that Throsby Park is managed by the Historic Houses Trust, the organisation that is best equipped with specialist skills to ensure appropriate conservation and interpretation of this historically significant site for many years to come.

Members today have spoken of the Throsby family, their six-generation representation on the site— quite a feat in itself—of the State and regional cultural heritage significance of Throsby Park, of the reservation and restoration history of the site, particularly with the buildings being a good example of the 1800s, and of the objectives of the bill to provide for the best management and conservation of the site under the Historic Houses Trust well into the future. The bill means a new way forward for Throsby Park that builds on the excellent restoration works undertaken by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. It enables the best use of the site in terms of protecting its significant heritage values while ensuring that it will be publicly owned in perpetuity, with opportunities for public access and appreciation. The bill seeks to protect our heritage. It demonstrates the importance that we place on preserving our heritage for our children and for future generations. I welcome the general support that has been expressed today from both sides of the House, and I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Passing of the Bill

Bill declared passed and returned to the Legislative Council without amendment.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Government business having concluded, the House will now consider the matter of public importance.

LAND ACQUISITION

Matter of Public Importance

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [6.38 p.m.]: It is fundamental to our democratic system that an individual owning property or a family owning property shall not be deprived of that property by government except in the most extraordinary of circumstances. Indeed, the United Nations through its Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 17 states:

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others; and

(2) No one should be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one should be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and the general principles of international law.

Under every prior government in the history of this State, New South Wales has respected these principles, even before we had the United Nations or the European Convention on Human Rights. The incumbent, fourth 21502 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

Premier in the 15-year history of this Labor Government should well understand the right of the individual to exercise his or her freedoms of property ownership, as guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States of America—the Premier's place of birth. Critically, there is a limitation on the taking of one's property, and it can only be done in the context of a clear public purpose.

In other words, in almost every Western democracy there is a presumption against seizing a property, a home, from its owner. It is with this background that one has to then consider that Premier Kristina Keneally should be well aware of the principles of private property ownership that underpin Australian and American ownership of property. She should understand that in her attempts to remove property from families she is in effect stealing people's homes for the purpose of on-sale to developers for a profit. Today in question time the Premier failed to deny that she would seize—that she would steal—family homes to on-sell to developers.

Mr Frank Terenzini: Point of order: I ask the member to withdraw the word that contains the allegation. What does the member mean by the word "steal"? That is what I want clarified.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I used that word in my personal explanation today. The Speaker was in the House and it was not objected to. It is a word that can be used in the context of the House. Instead the Premier tried to argue that she was doing no more than supporting a concept that was supported by this House when it introduced the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act in 1991. Her argument was specious, vacuous and completely wrong. That Act ensured that when land did have to be resumed in the public interest for such activities as schools, hospitals, roads, trains, et cetera, appropriate compensation would be paid. What the Premier is proposing is completely different and just happens to be the third time in as many years that Labor has tried to effectively steal the family home for developers.

In 2008 when the then Planning Minister was introducing amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, part 9A subsection 2 of the draft exposure bill provided that land to be acquired could "be resold to, or be conferred on another person whether for profit or otherwise". On behalf of the Liberals and The Nationals I demanded the removal of that provision and when the bill was introduced into the House it was removed. That was a victory for families. But then in March 2009 the Barangaroo Delivery Authority Act was introduced. Again the Government tried to introduce a broadscale right for the Barangaroo Delivery Authority to resume land, period. Discussions I had with Government representatives resulted in the Government indicating privately that any resumptions would be limited to the area immediately adjacent to Barangaroo and only for the purpose of facilitating development at Barangaroo.

But Premier Keneally showed her true colours when she failed to put those undertakings on the record in Parliament. At that time she was Minister for Planning. Although the Opposition sought assurances from Minister Keneally that this power would not be used outside the Barangaroo lands, she failed to say a word, and in so doing her silence was a pretty good indicator of where she wanted to head in terms of a centralised approach at grabbing families' homes. Now Kristina Keneally, as Premier, and State Labor are making a more broadscale attack on the family home. Let us be very clear. Our all-smiling, bike-riding, football-playing, photo-opportunity-driven Premier is proposing effectively to steal families' homes to on-sell to developers absolutely anywhere, anytime. It appears that Labor is utterly intent on attacking families' rights to peaceful enjoyment of their properties.

Let me make it clear that the Liberals and The Nationals recognise the need for substantially increased housing and that those who produce housing deserve our support, but the support should be on the basis of their playing within the rules and being prepared to pay the price a willing vendor wants and that a willing purchaser is prepared to pay. But what Kristina Keneally and Labor are saying is that if a developer does not want to pay the price that you are asking for your home, or if you simply do not want to sell your home, they will force you to do it, effectively stealing your home. Irrespective of your history in that home, irrespective of your family's history, irrespective of your age or your dependence on being in that home, irrespective of its suitability for your particular needs—in fact irrespective of absolutely everything other than that a developer wants your property— Kristina Keneally will effectively facilitate the theft of your home.

Today Premier Keneally noted Barry O'Farrell's analogy of Labor's approach being similar to a Stalinist or Marxist centralised approach to property ownership. Kristina Keneally should hang her head in shame. She asked to be judged by her actions. It appears that after doing very little except appear for photo shoots in her first three months as Premier her first major policy initiative is driven by the millions paid by some developers into Labor's coffers. The Liberals and The Nationals oppose Kristina Keneally's wholesale onslaught, her theft 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21503

of people's homes. Premier Keneally wants the families of New South Wales to pay the price for her Government's incompetence at getting new properties to the market. Her Government is very much the reason why the 181,000 promised blocks of land in north-west and south-west Sydney have not come to the market.

Five years ago a former Minister for Planning promised it would happen, but it has not. We have not seen families moving into those properties because they do not exist. Rather than families having to pay the price of the theft of their homes, Premier Keneally should further reduce the levies that make land too expensive. She should streamline the State Government agency concurrence powers. She should just do her job rather than make families pay the price for her failure to do her job. Kristina Keneally's complete disregard for those rights—rights recognised by the United Nations, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the United States Constitution, and protected by every Government in New South Wales up until her Government— is a clear indication that the Premier's approach is to make the people pay for her incompetence. The Liberals and The Nationals will do everything we can to stop her stealing people's homes.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [6.45 p.m.]: I speak on this matter of importance, which is also a matter of urgency. It is not urgent because of anything constructive the Opposition is saying but because of the unscrupulous scaremongering by the Opposition. How low do members of the Opposition have to go to attract attention from the public? They use words and phrases such as "stealing", "anytime, anywhere", as the member for Wakehurst just said. He says, "Look out. Lock your doors." He is an experienced member of Parliament; he has been here for many years. Election time is approaching and he needs to get attention. Why does he stoop so low and use such phraseology? It is plain and simple scaremongering.

In 25 years Sydney will have a population of six million people, which will require a Premier and a Government that exercise leadership. We see anything but that on the other side of the House. There is no leadership over there. There is an aspiring government opposite, the people who want to sit on this side of the House in a year's time. But what do we hear from the experienced member for Wakehurst? "Anytime, anywhere. Lock your doors, because the Premier could be coming to knock on your door and tell you to move out. How long have we got, Premier, before someone comes along to tell us to move out of our house?" That is absurd.

Members opposite were going to get a report by Max Moore-Wilton that would save Sydney and the world, and put a whole lot of things in place. That was due, as I recall, in February 2009. It is now March 2010 and the report has just come out. Did the report recommend fast-tracking planning approvals? Did it recommend accelerated delivery of infrastructure? Did it contain a single measure, a skerrick that would make anything happen more quickly? No, it did not do that at all. At a time when leadership is needed, people are saying to the Opposition, "What is your policy? What are your ideas for making things happen more quickly so that we can put people in established urban areas and make sure they can get to transport corridors? What do you propose so that people can get to public transport? How can we develop sites and make sure we can accommodate the extra population?" There is not one proposal. On 18 February 2010 an article in the Sydney Morning Herald said:

The proposed overhaul, detailed today in the State opposition's Infrastructure NSW policy document, follows the appointment a year ago of former senior Federal and State public servant Max Moore-Wilton, to advise the opposition of how to halve the time it takes for large projects to get off the ground.

… it is not clear how greater co-ordination and certainty over project delivery will deliver the gains the opposition anticipates.

The opposition's approach differs little from the way infrastructure spending is assessed through the Budget sub-committee on which both the Premier and Treasurer sit at present …

The Sydney Morning Herald report continued:

While the opposition has been finalising its new policy, the Government has accelerated the approval process within the Department of Planning, while seeking to use more broadly the same fast-track approval process used to implement the Federal Government's stimulus spending package …

The Sydney Morning Herald noted that in the past 15 months the Government had:

… pushed through a large number of major projects, so-called Part 3A projects, moving more recently to install independent planning panels aimed at removing politics from planning decisions and to speed up the approval process.

NSW Business Chamber head, Stephen Cartwright, said: "I did find it curious that the Opposition chose to ignore the potential and possibilities of great private sector involvement as a way of accelerating infrastructure construction." 21504 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

It has taken the Opposition a year to produce this report and what does it have to show for it? Just another level of bureaucracy, that is all. Nothing will happen more quickly. Today an Opposition member in this House has told people, "You had better watch out because the Premier could come knocking on your door and steal your home." Is that any way to approach a serious issue? Is that any way to debate a serious issue? Sydney will have six million people in 25 years. The Government has said it will develop transport corridors and redevelop sites. We want it done quicker and we want to locate these people close to existing infrastructure. We do not want them hours out of the way, so they have to drive all the way into town. We do not want that. We are going to show leadership, and this is what we are going to do." That is what this side of the House has done, because that is what we get paid to do: we get paid to lead.

Let us contrast that with what is happening on the other side of the House. In its zeal to get back on this side of the House and form a government, we see irresponsibility on the part of the Coalition. We see irresponsible dialogue from a member of Parliament who should know better, who says the Government is going to steal people's property anywhere, at any time. At least he could have said, "They are going to steal it within the existing transport infrastructure." At least he could have said, "They are going to come along and do this in these areas." But no, he says the Government will do it anywhere, at any time. That is totally irresponsible of the Coalition. I think it will make the people of New South Wales really think twice about what they would get if they voted in this lot opposite. After 15 years of sitting on the other side of the House, Coalition members are looking increasingly desperate as every day passes. As we saw today in question time they are very touchy, very much on edge——

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The matter of public importance is purely and simply about private property rights. The member for Maitland has now been talking for 32 seconds about matters totally unrelated to private property rights.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The member for Maitland may continue.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI: I was waiting for some good debate on private property rights. That is a topic that would interest anyone: we all have something to do with private property. I was waiting for an alternative policy from the Coalition. I was waiting to hear about some policy, for the Coalition to say, "This is the way we would do it." But we did not get that at all. All we got from the Coalition was, "Lock your doors, everybody, because we're coming." That is what we got from members opposite: a base-grade debate.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [6.52 p.m.]: I speak to this matter of public importance about private property rights, a fundamental platform in our society. For the benefit of members opposite, Karl Marx said that owning or aspiring to own property is a completely selfish attitude. It was a communistic philosophy that was proven to have failed. The day that we cannot encourage young people and ordinary people participating in our communities to own property, or to believe that they can own property, will be the day we fundamentally devalue our society. Yet according to the property rights creed that has emerged under New South Wales Labor after its 15 years in office, people will find that what they thought they owned is not the reality. This property rights creed, under which a government can legislate to override people's personal rights and their property rights, is growing, and it is out of control on a number of fronts.

I refer to property rights regarding housing. Stealing people's housing has now become much more than that: it amounts to stealing people's neighbourhoods. Governments can now override local communities on a regular basis, as we have seen with the recent social housing project in the Rudd stimulus package. I am sure it would affect the member for Maitland as well. Developments are being imposed on communities without the very people who are fully supportive of public housing being given an opportunity to have a say. The fact that high-density public housing is replacing low-density and single-unit dwellings in many of our communities is an erosion of neighbourhoods and people's personal property rights. This is reflected in a number of instances.

Members have heard me speak about the Moree project, a project that is reflected in a number of other communities, where there were 10 projects, eight of which the community supported and two of which the community did not support. Indeed, we have blockaded one of those sites, where the Department of Housing has sought to override local community controls and expectations. We say the Department of Housing will not get in there. We know that if that inappropriate development is constructed, the neighbourhood will change drastically. The neighbourhood's property values will be diminished quite considerably, and the high-density housing fast-track proposal that the Government sought to impose on that community will fail again. 16 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 21505

Time and again Labor governments seek to override people's personal and property rights, and that is reflected in a devaluation of housing prices. It is a fundamental problem if people cannot get out of bed and think that what they own is actually theirs. That is a concern not only for the community but also for organisations such as the Bankers Association. Today's Sydney Morning Herald reports that the American expert Henry Cisneros said that the American Government has "warned the Keneally government to exercise extreme caution before using proposed powers that would allow it to acquire private land and turn it over to property developers" for a profit. Time and again the Coalition has been caught out compromising the public good. Whether it is Wollongong council, cash for comment, or money for laws to bypass local communities, people are sick of it. That is why we want to raise property rights, and why members on this side of the House will protect people's property rights.

The fact that for the past 15 years the Government has failed to successfully engage property releases in the form of land releases and has failed to put in place the appropriate public housing that we need is an indictment of the Government. We do not need to impose these Soviet, communistic-type laws on our community. It is not what the community wants; it was never intended that it be done that way. It is disingenuous of the Premier to basically say that she will extend these laws. We urge the Government to listen to communities and stop overriding them.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [6.57 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Maitland for his contribution, and I also thank the member for Barwon. As the member for Maitland has clearly decided he does not have a future with this Government—and most of the public of New South Wales have now decided that he is leaving at the next election—I suppose this is one of his farewell speeches. Perhaps that would explain—

Mr Frank Terenzini: Point of order: The member for Wakehurst is introducing new material. I would like to hear his reply to the matter of public importance. But I appreciate his thanks.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I will hear further from the member for Wakehurst before I make a ruling.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Having thanked the member for Maitland and the member for Barwon, I note that the member for Maitland had ample opportunity to defend the Labor Government and Premier Keneally, and to indicate that the Premier was not going to steal people's homes, and that she was not going to resume people's homes and on-sell them to developers, that that was not really her intention. But, instead, he simply chose to deal with the verbal pedantics of precisely what verb we could apply to the Premier's actions. Whatever verb is applied, it means "seize people's property; take family homes; deny them the right to continue in their homes; and take those homes and on-sell them to developers for a profit". What the member for Maitland failed to say is that the Government is saying to developers, "We will do a deal with you. If you can't buy the property, if you can't take that extra step to do it in the way that normally happens in the private enterprise world, in the way that happens in our Western democratic society, don't worry about it, we'll fix it for you."

The Government is saying to developers, "We will take those people's homes off them and hand them to you. You can do what you want and you can put the development together." It does not matter how long a family might have lived in a home; it is fundamentally wrong for a Government to take people's homes and to on-sell them to developers to make a profit, which is what the Government is all about. That is what Premier Kristina Keneally is intending to do in her first major policy initiative. As the member for Barwon said earlier, the Government has not just stopped at the concept of stealing an individual's home; it is stealing the homes of entire communities.

The member for Maitland would be aware that I visited his electorate, as that visit was reported in the local newspaper, but he did not deny the truth of what I was saying. I said in Maitland, in Charlestown, in Swansea and in Kiama that the Government's current social housing approach of taking people's properties and whacking in large housing developments without consulting the local community about the style of housing that was required, effectively is stealing the neighbourhood. I stood in the Maitland electorate with about 10 residents who enumerated why they thought the Government should go. I might add that they supported the social housing concept, as do the Liberal-Nationals Coalition. They supported the fact that we need more public housing, in particular, as the Government has done next to nothing for the past 15 years. However, they believe that the Government is taking away their right to their neighbourhoods.

As the member for Barwon said earlier, it is entirely appropriate to state that the current State Labor Government has stolen the right of communities to design their neighbourhoods in the way in which they would 21506 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16 March 2010

like them to be designed. In addition, the Government has told us that it will steal individual homes and on-sell them to developers for a profit. As I said earlier, we support the need for more public housing. For the past decade and a half the Government has done nothing to provide additional public housing. The Liberal-Nationals Coalition supports those who are building these homes, and it supports those who are trying to get them into the marketplace. However, they have to play by the rules. They cannot expect special deals that will deny families the right to continue to live in their own homes.

Discussion concluded.

The House adjourned, pursuant to standing and sessional orders, at 7.02 p.m. until Wednesday 17 March 2010 at 10.00 a.m.

______