Abortion 3442 Adjournment 3449 Alcoholic Beverages Advertising Prohibition Bill 2015 3405 Ashfield Local Area Command 100 Years

ABORTION 3442 ADJOURNMENT 3449 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ADVERTISING PROHIBITION BILL 2015 3405 ASHFIELD LOCAL AREA COMMAND 100 YEARS OF WOMEN IN POLICING 3400 BANKSTOWN LOCAL CLUB GRANTS PRESENTATION AWARDS 3403 BEEKEEPING 3444 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 3403, 3404, 3404, 3405 BYLONG COAL PROJECT 3448 CATARACT REMOVAL WAITING LIST 3446 CHILD PROTECTION WEEK 3440, 3449 CHINA-AUSTRALIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT 3450 CLASSIC CARS REGISTRATION 3443 COAL SEAM AND OTHER UNCONVENTIONAL GAS MORATORIUM BILL 2015 3410 CONSTABLE EDUCATION PROGRAM CLASS 325 3400 FIREARMS AMENDMENT (LEVER ACTION SHOTGUNS—COMMUNITY SAFETY) BILL 2015 3415 INTERNATIONAL FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDERS AWARENESS DAY 3402 INVASIVE SPECIES PLAN 3447 LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL 3449 MEMBER FOR EAST HILLS AND 2015 STATE ELECTION 3436 MOUNTIES GROUP CLUB GRANTS PRESENTATION NIGHT 3402 MULTICULTURAL HEALTH SERVICES 3445 NORTHCONNEX AND HEAVY VEHICLES 3438, 3449 PETITIONS 3404 PORT MACQUARIE PLAZA CAR PARK 3417, 3442 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 3438 ROYAL REHAB WALL OF FAME 3440 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS 3453 SENIORS GAS AND ELECTRICITY CHARGES 3441 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT 3405 ST MARTHA'S CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 3439 STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE 3404 TAFE NSW 3452 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 3451 WILLIAMTOWN LAND CONTAMINATION 3439, 3442, 3443, 3444 WORKERS COMPENSATION PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR OPERATIONS 3446 WORLD SUICIDE PREVENTION DAY AND R U OK? DAY 34 01

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday 10 September 2015 ______

The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 9.30 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

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

ASHFIELD LOCAL AREA COMMAND 100 YEARS OF WOMEN IN POLICING

Motion by the Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) 2015 is the 100 year anniversary of Lillian Armfield and Maude Rhodes becoming the first female police officers in New South Wales, from over 500 applicants;

(b) both Lillian Armfield and Maude Rhodes were required to sign an indemnity, releasing the police department of any responsibility for their safety and were not provided with a uniform, so had to wear civilian clothes;

(c) the NSW Police Force has held a range of celebrations of the centenary of women in policing, including a baton relay and a march through Macquarie Street, Sydney on Thursday 3 September 2015;

(d) the Ashfield Local Area Command held a local family fun day with the community on Saturday 29 August 2015 at Gough Whitlam Park, Earlwood, to celebrate 100 years of women in policing, and particularly honoured the first woman to serve in the Ashfield Local Area Command and Belinda Dunn; and

(e) the event was attended by Ms Jodi McKay, MP; Ms Jo Haylen, MP; the Hon. Courtney Houssos, MLC; mayor Lucille McKenna; and mayor Brian Robson.

(2) That this House:

(a) recognises the invaluable and dedicated work of all of the women who have served in the NSW Police Force over the past 100 years;

(b) congratulates the Ashfield Local Area Command, in particular Local Area Command Commander David Johnson; and

(c) congratulates the many women police officers from the Ashfield Local Area Command who participated in the baton relay and celebrations on Saturday 29 August 2015, including the master of ceremonies, Angela Vergopoulos.

CONSTABLE EDUCATION PROGRAM CLASS 325

Motion by the Hon. DAVID CLARKE agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) on Friday 21 August 2015, the Attestation Parade for Constable Education Program Class 325 was held at the NSW Police Force Academy, Goulburn; and

(b) those who attended as guests included:

(i) His Excellency the Hon. David Hurley, AC, DSC (Ret'd), Governor of New South Wales, and Mrs Linda Hurley;

(ii) NSW Commissioner of Police, Andrew Scipione, APM, and Mrs Joy Scipione;

(iii) Mr Andrew Gee, MP, member for Orange, Parliamentary Secretary for the Deputy Premier and Regional Roads representing the Hon. Troy Grant, MP, Deputy Premier, Minister for Justice and Police, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Racing;

(iv) New South Wales Deputy Police Commissioner, Corporate Services, David Hudson, APM;

(v) New South Wales Deputy Police Commissioner, Specialist Operations, Catherine Burn, APM;

(vi) New South Wales Deputy Police Commissioner, Field Operations, Nick Kaldas, APM;

(vii) New South Wales Acting Assistant Police Commissioner, Commander Education and Training, Mark Hiron, APM;

(viii) the Hon. David Clarke, MLC, Parliamentary Secretary for Justice; and

(ix) New South Wales Police Chaplain, Reverend Ian Diamond.

(2) That this House congratulates those of Constable Education Program Class 325 who were sworn in as police officers at the Attestation Parade held at the NSW Police Force Academy on Friday 21 August 2015, and wishes them well in their future career as officers of the NSW Police Force.

WORLD SUICIDE PREVENTION DAY AND R U OK? DAY

Motion by Ms JAN BARHAM agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) Thursday 10 September 2015 is World Suicide Prevention Day, with the theme of "Reaching out, saving lives", with the intention of reducing the stigma of talking about suicide by increasing community awareness and involvement; and

(b) RUOK? Day is marked on the same date in Australia to remind Australians that asking this small question and listening to the answer can be extremely important to people who are having a bad time.

(2) That this House notes that according to the most recent available statistics for New South Wales:

(a) almost 700 people died by suicide in 2013;

(b) an estimated 20,000 people made a suicide attempt;

(d) the rates have not significantly decreased over the previous decade.

(3) That this House:

(a) acknowledges the important work done by the National Health and Medical Research Council's Centre of Research Excellence in Suicide Prevention and the Black Dog Institute, funded by the NSW Mental Health Commission, in developing the Proposed Suicide Prevention Framework for NSW which was launched at the National Suicide Prevention Summit on 10 August 2015;

(b) notes that the major message in the framework is that suicide prevention requires the cooperative involvement of government and non-government agencies at a local and regional level; and

(i) reducing access to lethal means;

(ii) responsible reporting of suicide by the media;

(iii) promotion of national suicide awareness programs;

(iv) school-based peer support and mental health literacy;

(v) gatekeeper training for those likely to be in contact with high risk individuals, including teachers, clergy, and community social workers;

(vi) regular suicide prevention training for emergency service providers;

(vii) training general practitioners to assess risk and start conversations;

(viii) adequate access to tailored evidence-based therapies such as cognitive behaviour therapy for high risk groups; and

(ix) targeted support for people who have made a previous attempt at suicide or are in current crisis through phone and online counselling, training for emergency department staff and out-patient support.

(4) That this House expresses its condolences to all families and friends affected by suicide and commend all individuals, organisations and communities who are working to reduce stigma and improve our capacity to prevent suicide.

MOUNTIES GROUP CLUB GRANTS PRESENTATION NIGHT

Motion by the Hon. DAVID CLARKE agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) on Thursday 6 August 2015, the Mounties Group Club Grants Financial Awards Presentation Night was held at the Mounties Club, Mount Pritchard;

(b) the event involved the presentation of funding for the financial year 2015-16 to 34 recipients covering 41 local community projects within the Fairfield, Warringah and Liverpool Local Government areas by the Mounties Group of Clubs comprising:

(i) Mounties Mount Pritchard and District Community Club;

(ii) Fairfield Bowling Club;

(iii) Mekong Club;

(iv) Triglav Club;

(v) Club Italia;

(vi) Harbord Diggers Club; and

(vii) Manly Bowling Club.

(i) the Hon. David Clarke, MLC, Parliamentary Secretary for Justice, representing the Hon. Troy Grant, MP, Deputy Premier, Minister for Justice and Police, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Racing;

(ii) Councillor Gus Balloot, deputy mayor of Liverpool City Council;

(iii) Mr Kevin Ingram, president of Mounties Group; and

(iv) Mr Greg Pickering, chief executive officer of Mounties Group.

(2) That this House commends:

(a) the Mounties Group Club Grants Committee, and its seven local clubs for their efforts in raising funding to assist 41 local community groups for the 2015-16 financial year; and

(b) those who are recipients of funding awards for the 2015-16 financial year for their ongoing contribution to the community in the Fairfield, Warringah and Liverpool Local Government Areas.

INTERNATIONAL FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDERS AWARENESS DAY

Motion by Ms JAN BARHAM agreed to:

(1) That this House notes that 9 September 2015 is International Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders [FASD] Awareness Day, an event that is observed in time zones around the world at 9.09 a.m. to raise awareness about FASD.

(2) That this House notes that:

(a) FASD is an umbrella term for a range of disabilities resulting from prenatal alcohol exposure;

(b) FASD is the most common preventable cause of non-genetic developmental disability in Australia; and

(c) children born with FASD have a range of learning, behavioural and developmental disabilities that affect them for the rest of their lives.

(3) That this House notes that:

(a) the National Organisation for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders has asked people to show their support by pledging not to consume alcoholic beverages on International FASD Awareness Day;

(b) people are encouraged to show their support by sharing images or photos on social media and speaking to their friends, family and networks;

(c) health professionals have been encouraged to promote the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education's "Women Want to Know" campaign, which encourages health professionals to speak to women who are pregnant or planning pregnancy about alcohol consumption.

(4) That this House commends the organisations, health professionals and individuals involved in raising awareness to prevent FASD and its impacts.

BANKSTOWN LOCAL CLUB GRANTS PRESENTATION AWARDS

Motion by the Hon. DAVID CLARKE agreed to:

(1) That is House notes that:

(a) on Thursday 6 August 2015, the Bankstown Local Club Grants Committee Annual Cheque Presentation Awards were held at the Bankstown Sports Club;

(b) the event acknowledged the valuable contributions made by clubs and community organisations in the Bankstown Local Government Area and saw the awarding of funding to a total value of $1,030,602 raised by local clubs to 76 community projects chosen by the Bankstown Local Club Grants Committee representing the following local clubs:

(i) Bankstown Sports Club;

(ii) Bankstown Sports Bowls Club;

(iii) Birrong Sports Club;

(iv) Revesby Workers Club;

(v) Bankstown RSL Club;

(vi) Bankstown Trotting and Recreation Club;

(vii) Chester Hill RSL Club;

(viii) Panania Diggers Club;

(ix) Padstow RSL Club;

(x) Bass Hill RSL Club;

(xi) Mount Lewis Bowling Club;

(ii) Councillor Allan Winterbottom, Deputy Mayor of Bankstown City Council;

(iii) Councillor Ian Stromberg, Bankstown City Council;

(iv) Councillor Jim Daniel, Bankstown City Council;

(v) Councillor Khal Asfour, Bankstown City Council;

(vi) Ms Donina Va'a representing the Department of Family and Community Services; and

(vii) representatives of clubs from the Bankstown Local Government Area.

(2) That this House commends:

(a) the Bankstown Local Club Grants Committee and the 12 local clubs that it represents for their efforts in raising funding to assist 76 local community projects for the 2015-16 financial year; and

(b) those who are recipients of funding awards for the 2015-16 financial year for their ongoing contribution to the Bankstown local community.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Formal Business Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business items Nos 386, 387 and 388 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

PETITIONS

Aboriginal Fishing Rights

Petition calling on the House to support the immediate commencement of section 21AA of the NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994 and culturally appropriate regulations, received from Ms Jan Barham.

Koala Child Care Centre

Petition requesting the Government to restore funding to the Koala Child Care Centre to enable it to provide evening childcare services for the workers of Sutherland Hospital, received from the Hon. Walt Secord.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Routine of Business

[During the giving of notices of motions.]

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members are aware that they will have an opportunity to debate this motion if they wish. That is the appropriate time for them to make a contribution. Members will be heard in silence.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Private Members' Business item No. 7 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by the Hon. Trevor Khan and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE

Reference: Inquiry into the Security Classification and Management of Inmates Sentenced to Life Imprisonment

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: I inform the House that in accordance with paragraph 8 (2) of the resolution of the House relating to the establishment of committees, the Standing Committee on Law and Justice resolved on 9 September 2015 to adopt the following terms of reference:

(1) That the Standing Committee on Law and Justice inquire into and report on the security classification and management in custody of the following categories of inmates subject to sentences of life imprisonment:

(a) inmates serving a sentence of life imprisonment for the term of their natural lives;

(b) inmates serving a sentence of life imprisonment who are subject to non-release recommendations as defined in clause 1 of schedule 1 to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999; and

(c) inmates serving a sentence of life imprisonment that is an "existing life sentence", as defined in clause 1 of schedule 1 to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, who have not had a specified term and non-parole period set for the sentence under clause 4 of that schedule.

(2) That in conducting its inquiry, the committee examine:

(a) whether the existing legislation, policies and procedures for determining the security classification and custodial management of such inmates are appropriate and consistent with community expectations;

(b) the impact of security classification and custodial management of such inmates on registered victims and the role of registered victims in the classification and management decision-making process;

(c) communication with registered victims prior to and following a security classification and custodial management decision being made and the form that any communication should take;

(d) whether it is appropriate to reclassify and provide inmates sentenced to life imprisonment with access to rehabilitative programs and services if they have little or no prospect of release from custody; and

(e) the impact of inmate security classification and management decisions on the operation of the correctional system.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 15 September 2015 at 2.30 p.m.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith relating to the conduct of business of the House this day.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps agreed to:

That the order of Private Members' Business for this today be as follows:

(1) Private Members' Business item No. 5 outside the Order of Precedence standing in the name of Revd Mr Nile relating to the Alcoholic Beverages Advertising Prohibition Bill.

(2) Private Members' Business item No. 303 outside the Order of Precedence standing in the name of Mr Searle relating to the Coal Seam and Other Unconventional Gas Moratorium Bill.

(3) Private Members' Business item No. 305 outside the Order of Precedence standing in the name of Mr Shoebridge relating to the Firearms Amendment (Lever Action Shotguns—Community Safety) Bill.

(4) Private Members' Business item No. 3 in the Order of Precedence standing in the name of Mr Veitch relating to the Port Macquarie Plaza car park.

(5) Private Members' Business item No. 5 in the Order of Precedence standing in the name of Ms Voltz relating to activities during the 2015 State election.

(6) Private Members' Business item No. 8 in the order of precedence standing in the name of Mrs Houssos relating to flexible working arrangements.

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ADVERTISING PROHIBITION BILL 2015

Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Second Reading

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.51 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Alcohol shortens lives in many ways. It causes cardiovascular disease, cancers, diabetes, nutrition-related conditions, obesity, risks to unborn babies, liver diseases, mental health conditions, self-harm, long-term cognitive impairment, alcohol dependence, injuries and fatalities from road crashes, violence and domestic violence, even death. As I was preparing for my speech today I noted a small local newspaper contained a whole supplement from Bayfields Liquor Superstore advertising alcoholic products. In the same suburban newspaper, in addition to the supplement, there were three full pages of advertisements for alcohol. Advertising plays a major part in promoting alcohol. Members might be surprised to know that if alcohol were invented today it would not be legalised. Professor David Nutt, director of the Neuropsychopharmacological Unit in the Division of Brain Sciences at the Imperial College London says that if we treated alcohol in the same way that we treat food colourants and conducted proper toxicology testing, the safe amount of alcohol to drink in a year would be one glass. He said, "This shows the magnitude of the blinkers we put on ourselves."

In the recent New South Wales budget, the New South Wales Government announced an allocation of $2.3 million over four years to create a centre at the Children's Hospital at Westmead for the prevention of harm to children and adolescents from drugs and alcohol, yet we continue to allow the alcohol industry to have a free run at fuelling the problems. It is counterintuitive that we invest in actions to promote our wellbeing and healthy lifestyles to reduce the burden of disease but continue to allow the perpetrating alcohol industry to flourish through a massive advertising campaign. A paper from the World Health Organization entitled "European action plan to reduce the harmful use of alcohol 2012-2020" states, "Standing back, it can be said that alcohol policies still do not reflect the gravity of the health, social and economic harm resulting from the harmful use of alcohol; they fail to be properly integrated within overall health, social and development policies." Disturbingly, the World Health Organization also states:

The extent and breadth of commercial communications on alcohol and their impact, particularly on young people's drinking, should not be underestimated.

The negative health and social consequences of alcohol can and must be reduced. This counterintuitive madness can be reversed. I call on members to sober up, show some Dutch courage and support the Alcohol Beverages Advertising Prohibition Bill. The 2013 report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues entitled "Strategies to reduce alcohol abuse among young people in New South Wales", states:

The Australian Association of National Advertisers defines advertising in its in 2012 Code of Ethics as:

any material which is published or broadcast using any medium or any activity which is undertaken by, or on behalf of an advertiser or marketer, and

§ over which the advertiser or marketer has a reasonable degree of control, and

§ that draws the attention of the public in a manner calculated to promote or oppose directly or indirectly a product, service, person, organisation or line of conduct.

It further states:

Professor Sandra Jones, Director, Centre for Health Initiatives, University of Wollongong, argued that it is important to take a broad view when defining advertising in order to acknowledge all media platforms used to advertise:

I think it is really important that we define advertising in the way that is interpreted by academics and by lay people, and even defined by the advertising industry.

She goes on to say:

The reason I think that is really important is it means that while advertising includes broadcast and print media, it also includes things like online advertising, social networking, point of sale promotions, sponsorship of sports and events packaging, and design of alcohol products, and things like being able to go in and buy Easter eggs and there is a Bacardi and bourbon brand of Easter eggs next to the Bratz ones.

Indeed, there are a number of media platforms now currently available to promote and advertise alcohol. In the past, alcohol advertising and promotion predominantly used traditional media—television, radio and print.

Alcohol is increasingly being advertised and promoted in new media and through a diverse range of strategies such as online games and advertisement gaming, product placement and cinema advertising. As at 30 April 2012, alcohol brands were among the highest-engaging industries on Facebook—second only to automobiles. According to the International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, in April 2010 the sports sponsorship market in Australia was estimated to be worth $600 million per year, with an average sponsor spend of $3.3 million in 2007. Indeed, it is estimated that each year $50 million comes from alcohol companies.

The Alcohol Beverages Advertising Code [ABAC] and the complaints management scheme is a self-regulating advertising scheme of the Australian alcoholic beverages industry. This code is operated by a management committee that comprises members of the alcohol industry, together with a government representative. There is no representation from the medical or public health sectors. The advertising regulator is run by those who make money by encouraging people to drink more, and more often. It is a voluntary scheme; it is not underpinned by legislation. Accordingly, regulators have no power to issue penalties for infringement notices. That is why this bill is urgent. The advertising code states that advertisements for alcohol beverages must:

(c) not suggest that the consumption or presence of alcohol beverages may create or contribute to a significant change in mood or environment and, accordingly—

(i) must not depict the consumption or presence of alcohol beverages as a cause of or contributing to the achievement of personal, business, social, sporting, sexual or other success;

It is not necessary to expound on the plethora of alcohol advertising that assures us of the contrary. Such advertising suggests that alcohol will cheer us up, reduce our anxieties, help us have a great time and contribute to our romantic success. So the alcohol companies actually breach their own self-regulation. To further highlight the inadequacies of the current system, ABAC does not oversee sponsorships. It is also important to note that sponsorships of sporting events shown on television allow alcohol companies to avoid the usual restrictions on daytime advertising of alcohol products. In June 2015, when handing down a determination, the code's adjudication panel stated:

… it is accurate to describe the regime applying to alcohol marketing as quasi-regulation.

The Commission for Children and Young People commented that self-regulation is "largely ineffective in preventing marketing which impacts on children and young people". The commission also highlighted the discrepancy between alcohol advertising on free-to-air and subscription television. For instance, the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice prohibits alcohol advertisements on free-to-air television before 8.30 p.m.; in contrast, there is no time-of-day restriction on alcohol advertising on subscription television. The commission noted that in 2013, 32 per cent of 13- to 17-year-olds had access to and spent more time watching pay television than free-to-air television, and there are no restrictions on the internet so those children are exposed to alcohol advertising.

Before anyone says that we do not need a ban; we just need strong regulation—and who of us would ever advocate for more red tape—I will list the advertising codes that alcohol advertisements must comply with in addition to the industry code: the Australian Association of National Advertisers code of ethics and the code for advertising and marketing communications to children; the code of practice administered by the Advertising Standards Board; the Commercial Television Industry code of practice; the Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association code of practice; the Commercial Radio code of practice; the Outdoor Media Association code of ethics; the Publishers' Advertising Advisory Bureau's guiding principles for alcohol beverage advertising; and the NSW Liquor Act 2007. It is obvious that those codes are not making any valuable impact on our society, children or young people.

Why were two alcohol-related targets set in the NSW 2021 State plan: risky drinking and alcohol-related assaults? We know what alcohol abuse is doing to us, yet we tinker around the edges. We do not need more regulation or another advertising code. Let us heed the call of the health experts and respond to the social impact studies now. It is it important to note the media dependence on alcohol advertising revenue. When has government policy ever been dictated to by the media? I recall some very unhappy representatives of the Sydney Morning Herald contacting me when we succeeded with the bill prohibiting cigarette advertising. They said, "We have just lost $200 million in advertising per year because of your bill." I have not received much good publicity in the Sydney Morning Herald since.

New South Wales government agencies do not collect information on the total cost of alcohol abuse, but the annual cost of alcohol abuse to New South Wales government services in 2010 was estimated to be in excess of $1.029 billion. Of that amount, $474.2 million was spent on the criminal justice system, including $372 million on policing; $263.1 million on community services; $87.3 million on the health system; and $204.2 million on lost productivity. According to the 2013 NSW Auditor General's report "Cost of alcohol abuse to the NSW Government", the cost is equivalent to $416 imposed on every household in New South Wales. The largest cost is to the NSW Police Force, followed by Family and Community Services for out-of-home care and child protection services, and NSW Health for alcohol-attributable hospitalisations. In 2013 the NSW Auditor General also estimated the total social cost in New South Wales to be $3.87 billion per year, or $1,565 per household.

The personal costs of alcohol abuse are just too great. In fact, some people pay a price to which no dollar figure can be attributed. We must take a stand against the insidiousness of alcohol abuse and do all we can to combat unabated alcohol abuse. The debate on this has raged for years; it is well past the time for us to act. A case study in April 2010 of developments in sport in Australia in the International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship wrote:

There is a large body of evidence to demonstrate that exposure to alcohol advertising influences alcohol expectancies, drinking intentions, and perceptions of drinking as a normative behaviour. Further, three longitudinal studies from the United States have confirmed the direct association between exposure to alcohol advertising and subsequent drinking. In particular, these studies have shown that those who viewed more alcohol ads in the seventh grade were more likely to drink in the eighth grade and to drink greater quantities in ninth grade and that each additional dollar per capita spent on alcohol advertising was associated with a 4% increase in the amount of alcohol drunk by young people.

The advertising is working for the alcohol industry; not for youth. The 2006 report "Effects of Alcohol Advertising Exposure on Drinking Among Youth" found that, for those aged 21 years or less, each additional alcohol advertisement seen increased the number of drinks consumed in the previous month by 1 per cent. It was also found that each additional dollar spent per capita on alcohol advertising increased the number of drinks by 3 per cent. In addition, youth in markets with high advertising rates demonstrated increases in drinking levels into their late twenties, while for drinkers in markets with fewer advertisements drinking stabilises in their early twenties. The NSW Parliamentary Research Service briefing paper "Key issues for the 56th Parliament" states:

Alcohol is another factor in youth suicide. A NSW Legislative Council Committee inquiry into youth alcohol abuse reported that, between 1993 and 2001, there were over 500,000 hospitalisations caused by risky and high-risk drinking in Australia, with 20,374 alcohol-related hospitalisations involving attempted suicide.

The inquiry also found that alcohol is associated with 'the three leading causes of death among young people: unintentional injuries, homicide and suicide'.

For years the Australian Medical Association [AMA] has called for a ban on alcohol advertising and sponsorship—sadly, with not much effect. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's national drug strategy found in a household survey conducted in 2010 that 38.4 per cent of 12- to 17-year-olds recently had consumed alcohol and that almost two-thirds of males aged 18 to 19 had placed themselves at risk of an alcohol-related injury at least once a month. Why are we so unconcerned about those figures? We must heed those warnings and act on banning alcohol advertising and sponsorship. In 2011 the President of the AMA, Dr Steve Hambleton, said:

One of the biggest contributors to teenage drinking is the marketing tactics used by the alcohol industry to promote alcohol products as glamorous and exciting, and this makes them attractive to young people. These marketing tactics put the health and lives of young Australians at greater risk. The younger that people start drinking alcohol, the more likely they are to become problematic drinkers later in life.

A 2011 study found that "the ubiquity of mobile phones gives marketers unprecedented ability to follow young people through their daily lives, delivering highly enticing marketing offers that are designed to trigger impulsive behaviours and linking point-of-influence techniques to point-of-purchase opportunities". Internet marketers are savvy and, as legislators, we must find a way to stay ahead of their unscrupulous targeting of our young people. We know that our youth are a vulnerable group, and the alcohol industry knows that too. It has a term for underage drinkers—future drinkers. But there is an economic hangover associated with all this merriment. Earlier this year the World Health Organization warned that "the harmful use of alcohol is a causal factor in more than 200 disease and injury conditions. Beyond health consequences, the harmful use of alcohol brings significant social and economic losses to individuals and society at large". The briefing paper "Key issues for the 56th Parliament" states:

The nexus between alcohol and domestic violence is strong and enduring, with AIC research identifying excessive alcohol consumption as an important risk factor for domestic violence. According to BOCSAR, 41% of NSW domestic assaults in 2010 were found by police to be alcohol-related, an increase from 36% in 2004. There are also links between alcohol abuse and child abuse, maltreatment and neglect.

The New South Wales Intoxication Guidelines address the need to minimise harm associated with the misuse and abuse of liquor and cite a non-exhaustive list of noticeable signs of intoxication categorised as speech, balance, coordination and behaviour. The guidelines advise that penalties for supplying alcohol to an intoxicated person can be very expensive. The licensee or staff can be fined up to $11,000, and other patrons who supply alcohol to an intoxicated person face a maximum fine of $1,100. Driving a vehicle at 84 kilometres an hour in a school zone attracts a lesser fine than buying a drunk mate another beer.

Some parts of our law acknowledge the seriousness of alcohol abuse, and we continue to introduce new ways to respond to the problem but without tackling the problem at its source. When are we going to take alcohol abuse seriously? The interlock program was introduced in February this year. It requires repeat drink-driving offenders to connect an electronic breath-testing kit to the ignition of their vehicle, which prevents the vehicle from starting if alcohol is detected. More than 80 per cent of drivers who were surveyed approved of the alcohol interlock program for repeat and high-range drink-driving offenders. They felt that it was a strong but fair penalty. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on the introduction of that program. It shows that we are aware of the harmfulness of alcohol, but we do not seem keen to touch the advertising industry. The New South Wales liquor promotion guidelines state:

It is in the interests of venues to ensure that all promotions are conducted with harm-minimisation measures in place to prevent unacceptable outcomes.

The guidelines go on to caution against promotions that "may still be considered undesirable as they are not in the public interest". Generally, if something is not in the public interest, it goes against principles of fairness, equity, decency or lawfulness in society. Public interest is linked to the wellbeing of the community or the risk of detriment to the community at large. Alcohol abuse harms the community. Alcohol advertising and sponsorships go against general principles of fairness, equity, decency and lawfulness in society. Sadly, since before the time of Sydney's Rum Hospital, when the builders of the hospital were paid not in cash but by being given a monopoly to import rum, drinking has been part of modern Australian culture. But just as it was in 1810, more than 200 years ago, in modern times advertising alcohol is not necessary for the alcohol industry to flourish. Amy Bainbridge, who is a journalist for the ABC program the Drum, summarised the Australian drinking culture well when she wrote:

Any drinker who's ever tried to have a stint off the grog knows how hard it can be. Not necessarily for you, but for your peers. "Whaddya mean you're not drinking," came the accusation, not the question, at an engagement party I went to last year. Within five minutes of arriving, and despite saying I was driving and having "a dry spell", a glass of wine was thrust in front of me at the dinner table. I'm not sure what it is about Australia, but for some reason it's offensive not to drink. I've had many stints off from alcohol, but always seem to fall back into the lapse of social drinking. Part of it is because I enjoy the taste, but the other part, and I'm ashamed to say it, is the feeling of being a bit anti-social if you don't. It's easier to tell a fib and say you're on antibiotics than fess up to wanting to feel healthier. I know women who've hidden the fact they're pregnant by hiding the label of non-alcoholic wine. Here, it's so unusual not to drink, that in many social situations you need to stage a charade in order to fit in.

When we have support websites that ask questions like, "Feeling a bit lost and alone and running out of options? Maybe you're even thinking there is no way out?" surely investing in programs to combat the harmful effects of alcohol, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the proliferation of an "alcohol equals fun" message, is the very definition of stupidity. It is, quite simply, a no-brainer. Regardless, we have heard it all before. The same arguments were used when this House debated a ban on tobacco advertising. In 2010 the International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship wrote:

Tobacco sponsorship of sport was subject to the same argument as alcohol sponsorship, that sporting groups were economically dependent on this sponsorship. However, in the 1990s several Australian states— which included New South Wales—

introduced legislation, and established health promotion foundations, to replace tobacco sponsorships with public health sponsorships. These foundations used the funds raised by a legislated 5% increase in tobacco taxation to sponsor sport, racing and arts organisations that had previously received tobacco sponsorship.

There is no need for the liquor industry to sponsor sport. The Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young was adamant about banning alcohol advertising in 2007. She stated:

The ban on tobacco advertising has been highly effective. There is no reason to doubt a ban on alcohol advertising would be any less effective. Australia long ago banned tobacco advertising and sponsorship of sporting and cultural events. The Greens will apply the same restrictions to alcohol advertising.

The Christian Democratic Party looks forward to The Greens support for this legislation. A report entitled "Alcohol's burden of disease in Australia" found in 2010 that 5,554 deaths and 157,132 hospitalisations were caused by alcohol, with the number of deaths increasing by 62 per cent since the study was last undertaken a decade ago. What else kills 15 Australians and hospitalises a further 430 each and every day? We are not calling for a ban on alcohol. We are calling for a phasing-out of alcohol advertising and sponsorship over a five-year period. For the first time, this year's alcohol poll, which was conducted by the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, asked Australians if they had seen an alcohol advertisement in the past 12 months and if they had found those alcohol advertisements to be inappropriate.

The majority of Australians, 73 per cent, indicated that they had seen alcohol advertising in the past year and more than two-thirds of those people, 69 per cent, believed that the advertisements they saw were inappropriate. The main concerns about the advertisements were that they appealed to young people under 18 years, 45 per cent; that they promoted drinking as being associated with success and achievement, 44 per cent; that they encouraged the rapid or excessive consumption of alcohol, 26 per cent; that they encouraged irresponsible or offensive behaviour, 24 per cent; or that they were sexist, 18 per cent.

According to a poll by the Foundation of Alcohol Research and Education, 63 per cent of Australians support placing a ban on alcohol advertising on television before 8.30 p.m. Australians were also asked whether they support alcohol advertising being banned on public property. Almost two-thirds of Australians, 65 per cent, believe that alcohol advertising should be banned on public transport, 60 per cent believe it should be banned on bus, tram and train stops, and 50 per cent believe it should be banned from sports grounds. The "Regulation of alcohol advertising: Policy options for Australia" 2013 report, completed by the University of Wollongong, surmised:

… our review demonstrates firstly that considerable research suggests alcohol advertising influences drinking behaviours, and secondly that current systems based on co-regulation and voluntary regulations (as is the case in Australia) are ineffective.

It is time to pass this bill, which will save lives. The Government's role is to protect its people. If it were anything but alcohol causing us such issues and cost, it would have been prohibited a long time ago. We are not asking for the criminalisation of alcohol; we are asking for a prohibition on advertising of alcoholic beverages. Let us emancipate ourselves from the tyranny of alcohol. If adopted, implemented and enforced, this intervention can protect health and save lives. Surely the Government is not so influenced by the spin from advertising and alcohol companies that profit from making us sick. I refer again to the findings of the Standing Committee on Social Issues regarding restricting alcohol advertising. In particular, Professor Jones testified:

I think in terms of what is going to work, what we can do at a policy level, it is about siding with the things we have some level of control over, like alcohol sponsorship of sport, alcohol advertising, the promotion of alcohol, the price of alcohol, the availability of alcohol, because those other things require changing social norms in order to change all those other positive influences on young people. You will not be able to change those norms in the environment that we currently have; it needs taking some really brave steps and saying, "Let's reduce some of this exposure", because then, as a parent, I have a choice. As a parent, if I do not want my kids to see alcohol portrayed as a really positive thing basically, I have to stop them watching television, I have to stop them walking down the street.

A number of inquiry participants, including the Commission for Children and Young People, called for a complete ban on alcohol advertising and promotion, referencing the banning of tobacco advertising as an example. Banning advertising and promotions has worked in relation to cigarettes and tobacco, and I believe it will work in relation to alcohol. I commend the bill to the House, which will prohibit advertising and other promotional activities aimed at assisting with the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Debated adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

COAL SEAM AND OTHER UNCONVENTIONAL GAS MORATORIUM BILL 2015

Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Adam Searle.

Second Reading

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Leader of the Opposition) [10.24 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I lead for the New South Wales Labor Opposition in debate on this bill. The object of this legislation is to put public policy on coal seam and other unconventional gas in New South Wales on an appropriate, sound footing. That footing is the policy we have campaigned on before, during and since the March State election—an immediate statewide moratorium on coal seam and other unconventional gas exploration activity while the environmental, scientific and regulatory design work recommended by the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer in her September 2014 report is undertaken and implemented in full.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: The Hon. Adam Searle is giving a second reading speech on an Opposition bill. If Mr Scot MacDonald wishes to interject constantly he should leave the Chamber. I ask that the member be called to order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: This is to be underpinned by a range of immediate and permanent no-go zones. This is not only the policy of the Labor Opposition but also the recommendation of the Legislative Council's Select Committee on the Supply and Cost of Gas and Liquid Fuels in New South Wales, given on 25 February 2015. After the mistakes of the past by governments of all major parties, this is the right and necessary course of action. Members opposite and across the Chamber know this to be true. Indeed, that is why the Parliamentary Secretary for the North Coast, Christ Gulaptis, MP, and the Hon. Ben Franklin have spoken in Parliament on the need to ban coal seam gas [CSG] on the North Coast of New South Wales. That is why they both moved on this at The Nationals conference at Pokolbin earlier this year. It is a shame that their party was not with them. I apologise for making the Hon. Ben Franklin blush.

The Baird Government continues to commit itself to its gas plan. Central to that plan is the continued development of the coal seam gas industry in this State. This is despite the Baird Government, in its response to the Legislative Council's select committee report, stating that it supports, without any qualification, recommendation 3 of that report, which states:

That the New South Wales Government fully implement the Chief Scientist and Engineer's Final Report of the Independent Review of Coal Seam Gas Activities in NSW (September 2014) before any expansion of the coal seam gas industry in New South Wales is contemplated.

The inconsistencies in the Government's stated policy positions reveal them to be in disarray on how to deal with this important public policy issue. In November 2011 the New South Wales Opposition called on the Liberal-Nationals Government to suspend all current coal seam gas exploration licences to protect the State's water resources. Labor's position was that the Government should suspend all existing coal seam gas exploration licences, cease issuing new coal seam gas exploration licences or new coal seam gas extraction licences and refuse any applications to expand existing operations. This decision was a departure from previous New South Wales Labor policy and was a decision that was made after hearing the concerns of people across the State.

Coal seam gas has the potential to damage our drinking water and compromise food security. The National Water Commission said that the coal seam gas industry "risks having significant long-term and adverse impacts on adjacent surface and groundwater systems". The CSIRO and the Queensland Water Commission have also expressed a similar view. There are major risks associated with coal seam gas exploration and production extraction, including risks to water quality; the extent of surface impacts associated with drilling and construction of gas gathering systems; contamination from produced water and flowback water, its storage and risk of spillage or release back into the drinking water supply; and the impact on terrestrial, aquatic and sub-surface ecosystems from clearing.

In July 2013 the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission [PAC] denied permission for Apex Energy to drill 16 exploration wells within the Illawarra catchment areas. The commission stated that more conclusive studies on the impact of coal seam gas activities to drinking water were needed. The commission also found that impacts of coal seam gas activities "were being questioned in a range of studies in New South Wales, Australia and internationally". The commission said:

It appears that the potential risks of coal seam gas activities are still being established and that there is some uncertainty regarding the potential impacts of the suite of coal seam gas extraction techniques which could be applied within various geological formations.

Ongoing, independent, peer-reviewed scientific research is needed on the impacts of coal seam gas on New South Wales water resources. Evidence from interstate and overseas shows CSG mining can have devastating and permanent impacts on groundwater resources. Once a water aquifer is damaged it can never be repaired. Residents, farmers and communities are deeply concerned about the impact the emerging CSG industry will have on their land, their wider environment and their lives. They deserve clear answers to these concerns.

It is beyond argument that we do not know enough about the longer term impacts of extracting gas from coal seams. Until we do, no prudent government—no prudent Parliament—can permit further development of the industry. Labor acknowledges that governments—including Labor governments—have rushed into CSG mining without fully understanding the potential impacts on the environment. When new medicines are introduced they have to go through rigorous testing to ensure they are safe for patients to consume. No medication is allowed onto the market until it is proven to be safe, and the same should apply to new industries such as CSG mining or extraction. Unless there is a scientific consensus that CSG mining will not damage aquifers and groundwater systems, we need to hit the pause button.

Any benefits the CSG industry may potentially offer cannot be delivered at the expense of our age-old aquifers and prime agricultural land. Until a water-tight regulatory framework is in place, based on independent scientific research and conclusive evidence, we should not be allowing CSG mining to proceed. The risks to our most important natural resources are just too high. The Labor Party will not permit any expansion of CSG in New South Wales unless the industry is proven to be safe. The coal seam gas and unconventional gas industry has caused alarm across the Australian community. There is a well-founded sense that the costs and implications for the environment and communities are not adequately understood and therefore the risks of allowing the industry to expand are too high.

The New South Wales Chief Scientist summarised the areas of concern as follows: contamination and depletion of groundwater resources and drinking water catchments; impacts of the co-produced water from CSG activities on the environment; impacts on the environment of hydraulic fracturing or fracking; impacts on human health from air quality, chemicals and noise; rapid expansion of the industry; access and landholder rights; potential impact on property values; fugitive emissions; uncertainty of the science; a lack of data, especially baseline data and a lack of trust in the data sources, particularly as they are primarily from industry; the industry is moving ahead of scientific understanding and regulation; cumulative impacts of multiple CSG wells and multiple land uses, such as other mining and agricultural activities; inadequate monitoring by government of industry activity and perceived unwillingness by government to enforce legislation and standards; and complex and changing legislation.

The size and scope of the uncertainty around this industry is unacceptable. Labor has argued for a moratorium on all CSG and unconventional gas exploration and extraction until we have the scientific data to inform management and regulatory approaches that provide safety for both our communities and our environment. The Labor Opposition is committed to the full implementation of the recommendations of the Chief Scientist in her final report of 30 September 2014. A Labor government will implement the recommendations of the Chief Scientist before any expansion of CSG in New South Wales is decided upon. But we should not have to wait for the election of a Labor government, which is why we have proposed the legislation that is now before the House.

The recommendations of the Chief Scientist we seek to have implemented are as follows: strengthened protections and benefits for landowners around access, valuation and compensation; recovery of full cost to government of regulation and support of the CSG industry, reported through the State budget process; the development and designation of areas where CSG activity is permitted and where it is not; a single Act for all onshore subsurface resources, excluding water; separation of the process for allocating rights to exploit subsurface resources from regulation of the activities to give effect to that exploitation, with a single and independent regulator; a new regulatory system focused on continually updated environmental impact and safety targets, to drive the adoption of new technology and innovation; and appropriate penalties and automatic monitoring systems that detect cumulative environmental impacts.

We also seek to have implemented the following recommendations of the Chief Scientist: the development of insurance arrangements to cover short- and long-term environmental damage; the development of an interactive whole-of-environment data repository for all State environmental data associated with water management, gas extraction, mining, manufacturing and chemical processing activities; a centralised risk management and prediction tool for all extractive industries in New South Wales, to be used to assess compliance and new proposals; a standing body of experts from across relevant disciplines to advise government, including on the overall impact of CSG; CSG extraction proponents to identify impacts on water resources, pathways, consequences and likelihood, baseline conditions and risk triggers prior to any activity commencement; and work with government to ensure ongoing mandatory training, accreditation and certification for all working in the CSG industry, including compliance, inspection and audit functions.

However, let us be clear, despite claims from this Government and the coal seam gas industry, the New South Wales Chief Scientist did not say this industry can be safely operated in New South Wales. She set out a road map—a body of scientific and regulatory design work—that, if done properly, would inform government and the wider community about whether the industry can be safely operated. This is a vital distinction. Under Labor's proposed moratorium in this bill there would be an immediate suspension of existing exploration licences and we would ensure by law that no compensation is payable to any party, we would cease issuing new CSG exploration and extraction licences, and we would refuse any applications to expand existing operations. Labor would support lifting the moratorium only if each of the issues identified by the Chief Scientist is safely resolved and we have a world-class legislative and regulatory system in place to ensure our natural assets and our people are protected. The onus of proof is on the industry.

Labor will not permit the further development of the unconventional gas industry in New South Wales unless it is proven to be safe. We have a large task ahead to fully understand the risks and their mitigation. In particular, the structure and relationships of our underground water sources must be mapped and understood. We have nothing like the level of understanding needed to allow intrusion into our groundwater systems with any sense of certainty and reassurance. In order to start building the necessary scientific understanding in New South Wales, we propose the adoption of the Chief Scientist's recommendation to establish a whole-of-environment data repository that includes all data collected according to legislative and regulatory requirements associated with water management, gas extraction, mining, manufacturing and chemical processing activities.

Most of the legislation that regulates the unconventional gas industry was written before unconventional gas was conceived of. Labor will begin again—and we propose beginning again in this bill—armed with the necessary scientific information, to build a regulatory system for unconventional gas that is specific to it. As recommended by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, we believe there should be established an independent panel that assesses the environmental, social and economic issues associated with exploration licences before they are issued. The bill will ensure exploration licences cannot be issued in "no-go" zones.

In line with the Chief Scientist's recommendations, the bill would allow only an unconventional gas industry that performs to the highest levels of safety and on a full cost-recovery basis. We believe there must be rigorous enforcement of compliance with legislation to ensure transgressions are punished with high fines and revocations of licences, as necessary. The industry should be expected to carry insurance and bonds high enough to cover any damage for which it is responsible. These are not the recommendations of any think tank or fringe concern; they are the minimum conditions for the industry recommended by the Chief Scientist.

There is too much uncertainty about the social and environmental impacts of coal seam gas. We cannot put our water quality and food security at risk for an unproven industry. Until we have mapped the aquifers, until we fully understand the impacts highlighted by the Chief Scientist in her report, and unless they can be safely managed, CSG should not proceed in this State. In line with the Chief Scientist's recommendation No. 6, we believe there should be immediately identified a number of "no-go" zones—places where unconventional gas extraction should never occur. These are places where large-scale industrialisation and its attendant infrastructure are simply not appropriate. They include core drinking water catchments, a two-kilometre exclusion zone around national parks, a two-kilometre exclusion zone around residences, critical industry clusters and prime agricultural land.

CSG and unconventional gas extraction will be banned from core water drinking catchment areas under this legislation. In the Sydney water catchment, we seek to legislate to ban unconventional gas in the special areas. On the Central Coast, the bill moves to protect the mangrove water catchment and other core water drinking catchments. In the Hunter, the bill will protect the core water catchments identified in the Hunter Water Regulation 2010. Elsewhere, the bill seeks to ensure all water catchment areas—however they are described—under an environmental planning instrument are also protected. The bill will ensure the integrity of each of the Avon, Bordeaux River, Warragamba and Woronora dams. Across the rest of the State, we will seek to work with local water authorities to ban unconventional gas in lands whose subsurface areas directly feed drinking water storages. This will include the Great Artesian Basin, the lifeblood of outback Australia. We include the banning of unconventional gas in the recharge zone of the Great Artesian Basin within New South Wales, including the Pilliga.

The northern rivers region is unique. It is one of Australia's most biologically diverse areas supporting a variety of significant habitats. Many parts of the northern rivers have been given World Heritage recognition, and the region is home to key industries such as tourism, manufacturing and agriculture which support thousands of local jobs. It is the job of a responsible Parliament to protect the northern rivers from activities which threaten the region's precious environment, local industry, businesses and agricultural land. Good economic development must support and enhance our environment. We on this side of the House seek to ensure the risks associated with the expansion of CSG and unconventional gas will not threaten the northern rivers. We know many of those opposite share those concerns and we hope they will join with us in putting this matter beyond doubt.

This region is pristine and stunning, with World Heritage-listed national parks and recreational areas. It has a unique quality of life, with a blend of lifestyles ranging from alternative to agricultural. It has a mild, subtropical climate, with a significant elderly and retirement population. The region has the nation's most significant internal migration in Australia. The industries of tourism, cattle, sugar and dairy all rely on the area's natural values. The environmental values of the region, where I grew up, are internationally significant. The development of the CSG and unconventional gas industry in this area would fundamentally undermine these environmental assets and the economic drivers that rely on them and should not be allowed.

Therefore, we seek to implement a total ban of CSG and unconventional gas in the northern rivers region of New South Wales, encompassing the local government areas of Ballina Shire, Byron Shire, Kyogle Shire, Lismore City, Tweed Shire, Richmond Valley and Clarence Valley. Labor's legislation will not allow any unconventional gas wells within two kilometres of residential areas. The bill also provides for a two-kilometre buffer zone around all land declared as a wilderness area under the Wilderness Act 1987 or the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, or reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, and an area listed as a wetland under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance done at Ramsar, Iran on 2 February 1971.

We will extend this protection to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage area. I declare a further interest in this regard: I am a resident of the Blue Mountains local government area, a former councillor and mayor. That does not unduly influence me; it just gives me an appropriate insight into the need to provide extra protection for this unique environment. The listing of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage area in 2000 was a resounding achievement for the preservation of a unique environment of international standing. The Blue Mountains is a vitally important and environmentally sensitive region, with pristine natural heritage, water catchment and national parklands. It is also home to a sensitive and unique ecology and biodiversity, including the endangered prehistoric dwarf mountain pine which is more than 200 million years old.

The World Heritage area contains a wide representation of eucalypt habitats from wet and dry sclerophyll, mallee heathlands, to localised swamps, wetlands, and grassland and several evolutionary relic species such as the prehistoric wollemi pine. It is inhabited by over 400 different forms of animals. Among them are rare mammal species such as the spotted-tailed quoll, the koala, the yellow-bellied glider and long-nosed potoroo. There are also some rare reptiles, such as the Blue Mountains water skink. One of the most exceptional features is the hanging swamps and associated groundwater-dependent ecosystems. These ecosystems rely solely on the purity and the reliability of groundwater aquifers, which would be greatly threatened by any CSG exploration and/or production.

The likely impact on the quantity and quality of water in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage area is seen as being highly destructive not just to the World Heritage listing, a listing that is regularly reviewed, but also to the water supplies of Sydney and Lithgow which are sourced from within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage area. In particular, the impact of contaminated coal seam water entering both groundwater and surface water systems in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage area, and the effect on drinking water quality in these areas, is of specific concern. It is also worth noting that, given the requirement for dewatering of coal seams, it is likely that extraction, even outside the area, would have an impact in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage area given the interconnecting and complex nature of groundwater aquifers. All would be put at risk by CSG or other gas exploration. Labor will not permit this, which is why we bring this bill to this Chamber.

Labor presents a carefully balanced and thoughtful policy solution to the difficulties posed by coal seam and other unconventional gas in this State. If members want to take a scientifically based approach to these issues, they will vote for this bill because it places the report and recommendations of the Chief Scientist and Engineer at its heart. If members want to protect our core water drinking catchments and ensure the integrity of the water on which we all depend for life, they will vote for this bill. If members want to make absolutely sure that vital areas—such as the northern rivers region of New South Wales, the Pilliga and the Blue Mountains—are protected, they will vote for this bill.

There has been a lot of politics around these issues for a long time. That has created uncertainty for communities such as Narrabri, Gloucester and Bentley, and for commercial undertakings. The outcome of this uncertainty is demonstrated by the debacle of the attempts to suspend the Metgasco licence at Rosella on the North Coast near Bentley. Under political pressure from that community and the wider community, the Minister rushed to take the issue off the table before the recent State election, but did it in a way found by the Supreme Court to have no legal basis. This was not the result of some quirky or obscure operation of the law; it was as open-and-shut a case as any matter in the law could be, in my view.

The Minister in budget estimates last week was, to put it mildly, opaque as to how such an important step could be taken without it being legally rigorous. I look forward to reading the answers to questions he took on notice in this regard. It is important and in the public interest to know how and why the legal powers of the Minister were used incompetently on that occasion, exposing the State to potential financial liabilities in the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. When the suspension occurred, Labor offered bipartisanship to the Minister to support legislation putting the validity of actions beyond doubt but the offer was not taken up, for reasons not explained by the Government. The legislation now before this House will provide that certainty on this and other issues outlined in my second reading speech. I invite all honourable members to support this legislation to put these matters beyond doubt, to provide certainty for communities across New South Wales and to put public policy in connection with coal seam and other unconventional gas on a sound and scientific basis into the future.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

FIREARMS AMENDMENT (LEVER ACTION SHOTGUNS—COMMUNITY SAFETY) BILL 2015

Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by Mr David Shoebridge.

Second Reading

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [10.48 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of the Firearms Amendment (Lever Action Shotguns—Community Safety) Bill 2015 is to amend the Firearms Act 1996 to restrict the possession and use of lever action shotguns in the same manner as currently applies in relation to pump action shotguns. The bill will restrict access to the multiple-round shotgun to only a very limited class of licensed firearms owners who have a category C or D licence. Under current laws, the eight-round Adler A110 shotgun is classified as the least restricted weapon, the same as an air rifle or a BB gun, and is available to all 217,000 licensed firearm owners in New South Wales. This is simply unacceptable and it poses a real and present danger to community safety in this State. Firearms ownership in New South Wales is increasing and there is absolutely no need to allow this weapon to be added to an already overstocked set of private arsenals around the State. The change proposed in this bill is entirely consistent with the objects of the existing Firearms Act and particularly the first principle:

(1) (a) to confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety …

The bill is also consistent with the objects of the Act, which include:

… to prohibit the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns except in special circumstances …

Many in the community have been quite rightly concerned since the first reports appeared of thousands of these weapons being on pre-order around Australia. Media reports backed by statements from gun dealers make it clear that at least 7,000 of these guns—and potentially many more—are already on pre-order. So we were pleased and surprised when Prime Minister Tony Abbott intervened in July this year and indicated that imports of the weapon would be suspended as part of a firearms review which had been started in response to the Martin Place siege. Stopping the importation of this weapon is an obvious and necessary step to retain the integrity of our firearms laws.

Despite this good start, Mr Abbott—as Premier after Premier in this Parliament has done—then decided to cut a deal with the gun lobby. The Federal Parliament has no formal shooters party, but there was a deal to be struck with Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm. Senator Leyonhjelm is a gun nut. He uses his vote in the Federal Parliament to blackmail governments to deliver pro-gun laws. He is quite open about that. And rather than wait for months for the national firearms review to be completed and then make an informed decision about the importation and licensing of this dangerous weapon, Mr Abbott immediately caved in to the gun lobby.

Mr Abbott agreed to a 12-month limit on the Adler A110 import ban in exchange for Senator Leyonhjelm supporting a Government bill reducing the legal rights of refugees—a truly offensive guns-for-intolerance deal. Senator Leyonhjelm is a pin-up boy for those who advocate American-style gun laws in this country. He famously argues that those who want sensible controls on guns have a mental illness. He wants almost no limits on gun ownership. He believes:

Once a person is safe to have a gun, it really doesn't matter what kind of gun they've got. If they're safe, it's safe.

Senator Leyonhjelm might think that it is okay for people's neighbours to be armed with unlimited numbers of military assault rifles and pump action and lever action shotguns. However, The Greens and the overwhelming majority of Australians beg to differ. We place community safety and common sense ahead of this toxic belief in the United States gun culture. But of course Senator Leyonhjelm is not alone. He has strong support among many in the Coalition and other crossbench Federal senators such as Bob Katter. In fact, Katter's son-in-law is Australia's biggest gun importer, Robert Nioa, who says that he has plans to import 20,000 of the A110 weapons every year, having already pre-sold 7,000 to local gun dealers across the country. Guns, money and politics are a potent and damaging mix wherever they come together.

The gun lobby describes the Adler A110 as, in their words, "a game changer". What is the Adler A110? It is an $800 shotgun advertised as "fast and furious" with a "smooth cycling action, five-shot tube magazine and a soft ventilated recoil pad". Videos online show just how fast this gun can be reloaded and fired, with eight shots in under eight seconds. Gun dealers are out there celebrating the speed, the lethality and the novelty of this weapon. That is how they have got the thousands of pre-orders. For sure, lever action guns have been around since the time of the Wild West. They killed people then. This updated version can kill even more people now, and that is the point.

What is the actual difference between a lever action shotgun like this and a pump action shotgun? There is a need with both to reset the gun between trigger squeezes and in both cases this reset takes a fraction of a second—maybe marginally faster with a pump action shotgun. Both contain multiple rounds that can be let off in quick succession. Neither has any place in the hands of the general public or even day-to-day recreational shooters. Gun Control Australia says:

Rapid-fire rifles turn up in mass shootings and that's why they were basically banned here after Port Arthur.

They also say:

We would like to see a complete ban unless it is subject to the same restrictions as a category C firearm.

This week at the Gun Control Australia lunch, former Prime Minister John Howard made the following comments about the gun:

If the Government ends up letting this in, and not treating it as I think it should be on the evidence available to me at the moment—treated as akin to an automatic or semiautomatic—then I would be very critical of that, certainly, and that would be a huge mistake.

He also said:

I don't think a great majority of Australians want to see a weakening of gun laws.

They think it's something we got right and I think we should keep it that way.

I do not often quote John Howard—at least not in support of an argument. In this case, he got it right. In 1996 he took the brave political decision to deliver our current tough gun laws—he took political damage for that—and he continues to make the case for community safety over day-to-day politics. This is a simple piece of legislation which simply seeks to ensure that the Adler A110 and any other lever action shotguns are classified as prohibited weapons for which a category C or D licence is required. There is no material difference between a multi-round lever action shotgun and a pump action shotgun. They can reload almost as fast and they are every bit as deadly. They should be subject to similar controls and licensing restrictions. They should not be subject to the same controls as an air rifle or a BB gun.

As a result of this bill, only a restricted class of licensed shooters such as primary producers, professional contract shooters engaged in vertebrate pest control on rural land and certain limited classes of clay pigeon shooters will be authorised to possess or use a lever action shotgun. This change is consistent with the objects of the Act. The National Firearms Agreement itself specifies:

Licence Category C (prohibited except for occupational purposes)

· pump action shotguns with a magazine capacity no greater than 5 rounds.

Licence Category D (Prohibited, except for official purposes)

· self-loading shotguns with either an integral or detachable magazine and pump action shotguns with a capacity of more than 5 rounds;

The Adler A110 can fire eight shots in under eight seconds, easily qualifying it as the kind of rapid-fire weapon the National Firearms Agreement was put in place to control after the Port Arthur massacre. Since we put those laws in following the Port Arthur massacre, we are fortunate to be able to say that we have not seen a repeat mass murder of that kind in this country. Other nations look to our country for guidance for national firearms laws that keep our community safe. As politicians we have an ongoing obligation to maintain the integrity of those laws and to continue to take, where necessary, brave political steps to stare down the gun lobby in the overriding interests of community safety.

But when Labor was in Government in New South Wales it repeatedly ignored that overriding obligation and it did deal after deal with the Shooters and Fishers Party to water down our firearms laws, one of the most notorious being the current section 6B of the Firearms Act which has been abused in tragic circumstances and led to an appalling death. Since coming to power in 2011 the Coalition has shown itself just as willing to trade off community safety for narrow political gain with its notorious deal to allow hunting in national parks.

With two members of the Shooters and Fishers Party holding a partial balance of power in this House and many pro-gun members of Parliament in the Coalition ranks, no doubt Premier Baird would rather that the bill was not on the books. However, community safety demands that the bill be supported. The bill can pass next week with a combined vote of the Government and The Greens. The bill is a chance for Premier Baird and the Labor Opposition to turn away from their past deals with the Shooters and Fishers Party and put community safety ahead of gun politics. I commend the bill to the House.

Debated adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

PORT MACQUARIE PLAZA CAR PARK

The Hon. MICK VEITCH [11.00 a.m.]: I move:

(1) That this House notes that:

(a) in 2010, the Draft Plan of Management for Hastings Regional Crown Reserve Precinct A was placed on exhibition and received 160 public submissions;

(b) the Draft Plan of Management for Hastings Regional Crown Reserve Precinct A includes coverage of a parcel of Crown land (Part Lot 701 DP 1026899) known as the Port Macquarie Plaza car park;

(d) in 2012, the Government commenced negotiations exclusively with Woolworths regarding the potential sale and development of the Port Macquarie Plaza car park;

(e) in 2013, an updated Draft Plan of Management for Hastings Regional Crown Reserve Precinct A was placed on exhibition and received 239 submissions;

(f) the 2013 Draft Plan was not adopted;

(g) in 2014, a significantly revised Draft Plan of Management for Hastings Regional Crown Reserve Precinct A was placed on exhibition and received only nine submissions;

(h) the 2014 Draft Plan removed the 2013 draft plan's commitments to both Communication and Community Involvement and expression of interest processes for land dealings;

(i) the 2014 draft plan was formally adopted by the Government;

(j) in 2014, Port Macquarie-Hastings Council requested the opportunity to enter into negotiations to purchase the site;

(k) in January 2015, the Government opened an expression of interest process and received 21 submissions, two of which were submitted in full;

(l) on 29 June 2015, the Government announced that Woolworths was the preferred candidate; and

(m) significant concerns have been raised by members of the Port Macquarie community and Port Macquarie-Hastings Council regarding the processes undertaken by the Government regarding planning and managing the use and sale of this important Crown land site, including:

(i) New South Wales Crown Lands misrepresenting the views of Port Macquarie-Hastings Council as trust manager for the Port Macquarie Plaza car park;

(ii) the Minister for Lands waiving the public interest requirement for a land assessment for the Port Macquarie Plaza car park site.

(2) That this House calls on the Government to halt the current sale process of the Port Macquarie Plaza car park and initiate a comprehensive, transparent and independent inquiry of the expression of interest process and the negotiations that have led to the current situation, including investigating the lack of adequate community consultation and the process leading to the adoption of the 2014 Plan of Management for Hastings Regional Crown Reserve Precinct A.

The resolution is lengthy but it enunciates everything that needs to be said about this matter. It has been explored at length. The 2010 Draft Plan of Management for Hastings Regional Crown Precinct A was placed on exhibition from 17 March to 23 April 2010 and received 160 submissions. On 25 January 2011, the then Minister for Lands, Tony Kelly, announced that the plan of management for the Crown waterfront lands at Port Macquarie was in its final stages. It is important to note that this matter has been discussed across two governments and I am not saying at any stage that Labor does not claim some ownership of the issue. It is important that Labor acknowledges that the process for the plan of management in 2010 started when it was in Government. However, the process changed along the way.

The Draft Plan of Management for Hastings Regional Crown Reserve Precinct A includes the Port Macquarie Plaza car park, which is situated on Crown land. The plan of management illustrates the size of the waterfront on the foreshore, which covers the car park around to the fisherman's co-op. It is a sensational and spectacular part of New South Wales and for those of us who have walked or jogged around the foreshore, it is a beautiful experience.

The Hon. Niall Blair: I have jogged around it a bit.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: The Minister for Lands and Water and I have jogged around the foreshore; I would not have been able to say that two years ago. When I visited Port Macquarie in June this year the people, quite rightly, expressed their concern about what will happen to their jewel in the crown, which is the harbour foreshore. It is fair to say that the building owned by Woolworths is not in keeping with the amenity of that part of Port Macquarie. Something needs to be done about the building, but of course that is a matter for the owner.

It is important to note that the 2010 draft plan was not adopted. It went through extensive consultation and 160 public submissions were received. In 2012 the New South Wales Government commenced negotiations exclusively with Woolworths about the potential sale and development of the Port Macquarie Plaza car park. In 2013 an updated Plan of Management for Hastings Regional Crown Reserve Precinct A went on exhibition. Importantly, that particular plan of management received 239 submissions. There has been significant public concern about the future of the Port Macquarie Plaza car park and harbour foreshore precinct since the first iteration of the plan of management. It would be difficult to say that is not the case based on the content of the submissions that have been received.

In February 2013 the Government announced that an amended version of the draft plan of management would go on exhibition. This version showed tracked changes throughout the document that highlighted where changes had been made. There were no significant changes to the principles and functions of the former plan. Both versions acknowledged some level of redevelopment of the plaza car park that is under consideration today. The problem is the process that the Government has undertaken to get to where we are now. The document showing the tracked changes includes significant changes to the draft plan of management, which are not simply cosmetic such as the change of names of departments. The plan was placed on exhibition for eight weeks and received 239 submissions. After announcing the new draft, the member for Port Macquarie, Leslie Williams, made a speech in the other place on 14 March 2013. She said:

The foreshore has been described as the jewel in the crown of the Hastings and is an iconic part of our landscape.

She mentions a number of issues that are pertinent to this motion. She goes on to say:

After years of fighting and a 16,000-signature petition to State Parliament, last year an area of land known as Westport Park, within that area, was given as the highest level of protection as open public space by the O'Farrell-Stoner Government, much to the delight of our local community. It was pretty clear what our community wanted.

That comment is important. The member for Port Macquarie went on to say:

Not surprisingly, the community wants the same level of assurance given for the future of the Port Macquarie foreshore ... In 2010 the then Labor Government exhibited a draft plan of management for the Port Macquarie foreshore for a period of less than one month, receiving approximately 160 submissions from the community. However, the majority of those submissions were actually about Westport Park. Unfortunately, the issues raised in those submissions were never made public.

The sentiments in the most recent 230-odd submissions have also not been made public. She also says:

An amended draft plan of management was presented to the then Minister for the Environment ... It did not see the light of day again. So much for listening to what the community had to say.

On Sunday 30 January this year, Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner and I called for community comment on the draft plan of management for Hastings Regional Crown Reserve, Precinct A, to give it its full name.

The member for Port Macquarie then went on to say on 14 March 2013:

We will then go through all of the submissions and develop a plan of management that takes those concerns into account.

The 2013 draft plan was not adopted. On 3 April 2014 it was announced that the New South Wales Government had abandoned its draft foreshore management plan in what some described as a shock decision, just over 12 months after the public submissions closed. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say today about why it did not proceed, when at the time the New South Wales Crown Lands spokesman said that the draft was dumped "as it would duplicate plans prepared by council". It would be quite pertinent for the Minister to put on the record whether the Crown Lands spokesperson was correct.

In 2014, a significantly revised Draft Plan of Management for Hastings Regional Crown Reserve Precinct A was placed on exhibition and received nine submissions. This time there were such significant changes that a fact sheet was issued about the new draft plan, advising that it had been handed over to consultants to revise in order to create "a clearer and more easily read document". I am truly not sure what they did differently for the public exhibition for this plan, but it only managed to receive nine submissions that time—compared to 160 for the first iteration and 239 for the second iteration, neither of which were adopted by the Government of the day. It is very interesting that the draft plan with only nine public submissions is the one that the Government finally adopted.

The 2014 draft plan removed the 2013 draft plan's commitments to both "communication" and "community involvement". If you compare the two documents you can see where the deletions took place. For example, one of the items deleted from the original document:

Granting of such land dealings will be through an EOI process having regard also to partnership agreements that may need to be resolved with other landowners in the area.

That was removed from the 2013 and 2014 versions. When I look at what has transpired since I wonder why that took place. The 2014 draft plan was formally adopted by the Government. If you go to page 25 of the draft plan that was adopted you find a heading "Focal Areas and Potential Opportunities". One of the items under that heading is Koolumbung Creek, where it lists:

Potential redevelopment of sites such as Plaza car park, Fish Co-Op and CBD moorings.

So, clearly, that was part of the process. If I look back at the bit that was taken out I realise that it was about consultation regarding the EOI process and I wonder why that happened. I note that the Minister at the table is not the Minister who has had carriage of this whole process. In fact, some would say that this Minister has inherited this exercise. In no way am I casting any aspersion on the current Minister on the process. The then Minister's press release on 12 January 2015 announced that the plan was "formally adopted after comprehensive consultation with Port Macquarie-Hastings Council and the local community". There were nine submissions compared to the previous iteration that had 239 and the iteration that had 160 submissions. I do not think you would call that extensive consultation with the community.

In 2014, Port Macquarie-Hastings Council requested the opportunity to enter negotiations to purchase the site. The reason for the council to make this request was that they belatedly found out that the Plaza car park was apparently up for sale. That is the advice that they have provided to us. The letter from the Mayor, Peter Besseling, to the then Minister, on 25 July 2014 says:

Council wishes to enter into negotiations, in good faith with the NSW Government for the purchase of the abovementioned site.

He is talking about the Plaza car park. He continues:

Furthermore, Council would appreciate the same opportunity that has been afforded other parties in respect of direct negotiation and requests details of the relevant contact person within your Department, so that these negotiations can begin forthwith.

The Minister's response on 23 September 2014 rejected that proposal, saying:

As there are now two parties interested in the site I have instructed Crown Lands to offer the site to the market for sale via an expression of interest process. Accordingly, I must decline your request to enter into direct negotiation to purchase the site.

It would appear that Woolworths was given direct negotiation for a period of more than a year but when council became aware of it and requested the same opportunity the Minister rejected it and offered it to the market instead. Strangely, in that letter the then Minister also says:

You also indicated to me that Council was aware of other proposals for the site. I advised that any other proponents should come forward and submit a proposal for consideration.

You have to ask: How did the Government expect other proponents to submit a proposal on the site when there was no expression of interest process at the time; no other parties knew the site was available, nor had the Government put out a notice indicating so; and Woolworths was in direct negotiations over the site? Paragraph (m) of the motion is important for the following reasons. Council was evidently disturbed to read comments from NSW Crown Lands that said:

Council as trust manager for the reserve for car parking has been consulted throughout 2012 and 2013 regarding the development proposal. They have indicated strong support; require no net loss of existing car parking.

The resulting correspondence from the Council's General Manager to the then Minister said:

At no time between the advice of May 2013 and the letter in December 2013 did Crown Lands seek the views of "Council as trust manager".

That contradicts what was said by Crown Lands. The correspondence continues:

Council is concerned that as trust manager, its views have been misrepresented in an important statutory process. On behalf of Council, I seek your advice as to what action will be taken in this matter and what steps will be implemented to ensure this situation does not occur again.

As far as I can find in available documents, the Government's response to this particular concern and request has been silence—nothing. It would be highly alarming if no action was taken in relation to these statements, and I call on the Minister to explain if anything has been done—and when it was done—to address the general manager's concerns about what they see as a misrepresentation of their position as the trust manager. Further, the Minister needs to explain to the people of Port Macquarie why the former Minister waived the public interest requirement for a land assessment for the Port Macquarie Plaza car park site. To date, we do not know. We only have departmental jargon saying "the requirement has been met". We would like to know how it has been met—what was done to meet that requirement?

The only conclusion to reach after going through all the evidence is that this process was flawed. Thousands of people from the local community feel shut out from making decisions about public land—their land. But what is worse is that it appears that at every turn the current Government has said that everything is fine, there is nothing to worry about and that the community was consulted. Well, 12,662 people say otherwise. They signed a petition saying that that was not the case, and I am inclined to believe them.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Did you write this speech, Mick?

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: You know I write all my speeches. To look at the Minister's well-worn responses about this issue—I daresay I am about to predict the speeches from members on the other side of the chamber—I will indulge in a few quotes. Just the other day in budget estimates, the Minister repeated his refrain, "There has been no sale of the car park." I am sure he could imagine the utter lack of comfort this must bring to the people of Port Macquarie, because if there is to be no sale of the car park, or even a lease, they need to know. In the same hearing the Minister also described the consultation as extensive. I hope someone was there to help him lift the folder containing the nine submissions to the draft plan of management that he received. It must have been a pretty heavy folder.

The Hon. Niall Blair: That was sarcasm.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: Sarcasm is not reflected in Hansard. In the Parliament the Minister has said:

The land is still owned by Crown Lands through the Department of Primary Industries. All we did through the expression of interest process was to allow direct negotiations to occur between the department and Woolworths.

First, the Minister again completely misses the point. The people of Port Macquarie felt that this proposal was entertained and that the wheels were put in motion without asking them. They felt excluded from the process. Second, it is interesting that the Minister says that the expression of interest [EOI] process "allowed" the Government to enter into direct negotiations with Woolworths. Is that not exactly what the Government was doing before the EOI process? When Council insisted that they be given the same opportunity, the EOI process was put in place, and direct negotiations happily resumed.

I also find it interesting that the Minister recently came to his senses about the poor treatment of the local Hastings River Fishermen's Co-op, and agreed to assist them. He said, in his media release, "I heard their concerns loud and clear." I want to put on the record that I am glad that the Minister heard their concerns loud and clear, and I am glad that he stepped in to assist the co-op. That was a constructive measure and I am sure all the people of Port Macquarie would have appreciated that. I hope the Minister is hearing concerns about the Plaza car park just as loud and just as clear. I hope at some stage that the views of 12,662 people will be heard by the Minister loud and clear as well.

Previously the Minister said—and no doubt other members also will say—that the Labor Party began this process. As I stated at the outset of my speech, this process began under the Labor Party and it has gone through two forms of government, but the reality is that the process is the problem that people are complaining about. With a new Minister taking control of the division of Crown Lands, we have an opportunity to set right a wrong that a large proportion of the population of Port Macquarie are complaining about. I call on the new Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water to take the very same action he took in relation to the Hastings Fishermen's Co-Operative and intervene. I call on the Minister to set up some sensible approaches to resolving this whole debacle and provide assurances to the people of Port Macquarie that their car park will not be sold or leased to Woolworths but, rather, they will be given a direct say in what happens to their public land.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water) [12. 20 p.m.]: On behalf of the Government I express my objection to the motion that has been moved by the shadow Minister for Lands and Water, the Hon. Mick Veitch. It is interesting that he quoted my responses to this issue in question time and during budget estimates hearings that took place last week. I will repeat some of those responses because they are directly relevant to paragraph (2) of the motion. Paragraph (1) of the motion sets out the history of events that have led to this point. I was appointed the Minister for Lands and Water earlier this year and it is my job to look forward and ensure that anything the Government does in the lands space is in the best interests of the people of New South Wales.

Paragraph (2) of the motion calls on the Government to halt the current sale process of the Port Macquarie Plaza car park. I will repeat what I have said earlier: There is no sale. No final decision has been made. At the moment, through the advertised expression of interest [EOI] process the Crown Lands division has engaged in direct negotiations with the successful party which emerged from the EOI process. The first thing to consider when members contribute to debate on this motion is that a decision has not been made on that parcel of land. As the Hon. Mick Veitch mentioned, I too am familiar with that parcel of land. I have jogged through there.

The Hon. Sarah Mitchell: Faster than Mick?

The Hon. Mick Veitch: No doubt faster than me.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: That is probably debatable. When I jogged through there, it was during the marathon stage of an Ironman race that began in the car park. It was probably after I had swum 3.8 kilometres, rode 180 kilometres, and then started running through that car park, which is part of the marathon course.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: Well done.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I am familiar with the land but after roughly nine hours before I started my marathon, I probably was not running as fast as the Hon. Mick Veitch runs on his normal 1.5-kilometre jog each day.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Isn't it 0.5?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I am sorry, his 15-kilometre jog.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: At least I can do it.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I digress. We are debating serious matters. The fact is that as I stand in this House, there is no sale. I have said that we will not make any decision that is not in the best interests of the Port Macquarie community. On 30 July I travelled to Port Macquarie and met with the chamber of commerce and the council to discuss their concerns. As the Hon. Mick Veitch mentioned, I also met with the Hastings Fishermen's Co-Operative, which was a constructive meeting. I came away from that meeting with Crown Lands officials and examined the issue raised by the Hastings Fishermen's Co-Operative. Crown Lands has entered into an extension of the lease of the Hastings Fishermen's Co-Operative and is discussing the costs associated with demolition once the lease expires. I met with stakeholders in relation to that matter. I understand their concerns. Crown Lands understood their concerns, and those concerns have been addressed. But what we have at the moment is a negotiation process that is the direct outcome from the expressions of interest process, which was advertised and completed.

The Hon. Mick Veitch may have seen media reports last week about Crown Lands putting a public-positive covenant on any future development of that site to ensure that car parking in that area is protected. I held meetings with the council whose major concern, among others such as the misrepresentation of council, was the car park. Through the negotiation process, the public-positive covenant has been put in place and I will deal with that in more detail later. I have said previously and I will continue to state that all necessary statutory requirements in accordance with the Crown Lands Act have been met. The Port Macquarie Hastings Council, as the local planning authority, is responsible for the key planning tools in relation to this site. That means that if—and I emphasise "if" because there is no sale involved in this process—there was a sale, any plans for that site must be considered by that planning authority, which is the council, in determining any development application relating to that site. It is very important to remember that.

The Hon. Mick Veitch referred to direct negotiations. Direct negotiations are a legitimate process for selling Crown land. Decisions to enter into direct negotiations are carefully considered and take into account the Independent Commission Against Corruption's guidelines for managing risks in direct negotiations. It is important to remember that. The Hon. Mick Veitch also acknowledged that this issue has quite a long history. In 2010 Woolworths submitted an unsolicited proposal to the department to explore the potential development of a combined site in Port Macquarie that included its freehold land, which is the former Food for Less site. I agree with the Hon. Mick Veitch who said that the building could be an eyesore, but I will go one step further and say that I think the building in its current condition is an eyesore. It is a blight on the beautiful foreshore of Port Macquarie. I think everybody agrees that that needs to be addressed. I am sure that the owners of the site also are aware of that.

Woolworths was considering the Food for Less site and the adjoining Crown reserve known as the Plaza car park. Direct negotiations were approved on 16 November 2010, under delegation, due to the unique factors of Woolworths' proposal arising from its freehold ownership of the adjoining parcel of land. Because Woolworths owned the adjoining land, there was a decision to allow it to enter into direct negotiation. The then Director General of New South Wales Trade and Investment supported continued direct negotiations in August 2013. Negotiations were discontinued in 2014 when the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council expressed interest in purchasing the land. The Hon. Mick Veitch has outlined the process of the EOI since then. I will address the issue of community involvement. The community had an opportunity to comment on the proposed use of the Plaza car park and adjoining foreshore lands through key land-use planning and management processes, all of which were publicly exhibited.

The Hastings Regional Crown Reserves Plan of Management was publicly exhibited three times before it was adopted in 2015. The Local Environment Plan [LEP] 2011, which is the main planning document regulating the development and use of land in the Port Macquarie-Hastings local government area, was publicly exhibited by council in 2010. The Plaza car park is zoned B3, core commercial, under the LEP. The Development Control Plan 2011, which provides a set of development guidelines and a planning framework for future development that encompasses land uses, road hierarchy, built form design, views and open spaces, was publicly exhibited by council in 2010 prior to its adoption. The point is that these planning instruments and management processes considered the future use capability of the site. A land assessment was not considered to change this, and that point was raised with me previously.

It was also noted that should the site be sold the development application process will include public exhibition for public comment prior to determination. As I have said before, the expression of interest process was open and transparent, with all interested parties able to respond. Transparency and equity were assured through the EOI process by the appointment of a probity auditor to oversee and advise on probity aspects of the process—the Hon. Mick Veitch asked me a question about that in budget estimates last week—and by the appointment of an external agent to manage the EOI process, including communications with candidates. The EOI information memorandum referred to fully discloses all issues and constraints relevant to the site, including planning documents, to fully disclose to any prospective purchaser the site's constraints and opportunities from a planning point of view. Evaluation criteria called for evidence on how EOI responses would meet the requirements of the plan of management and the LEP and the panel which evaluated the EOI responses included departmental personnel and an external agent with no previous role in negotiating with Woolworths, and was overseen by the probity adviser.

That is a brief summary of what has happened to date. In relation to the parking, which I said was a key issue, I can assure the people of Port Macquarie that parking and the importance of the site are acknowledged. Planning controls for car parking are a matter for council and the proponent through the development application process. However, after my visit and meeting with stakeholders, the Government has listened to the Port Macquarie community, council and the local member, who has been strong on this as well. The Government will ensure that the existing car parking spaces in the Plaza car park are protected through a public positive covenant should the site be sold. I repeat: should the site be sold, because as of today the site has not been sold.

The public positive covenant means that any new owner will be bound to protect the existing car parks in any future development of the site. The Government's announcement about the protection of the existing car parks was made in response to public interest in this matter, noting that the covenant would apply to any owner of the site. The preferred bidder in the current expression of interest process agreed to it being discussed publicly in accordance with the EOI negotiation protocol. As of today, the site is still in the ownership of the people of New South Wales through Crown Lands. We had a publicly advertised EOI process in which Woolworths was the successful candidate, and an external probity adviser was attached to that process. Negotiations are continuing. The public positive covenant of the car parking has been included in those negotiations and placed on the site. As of today no final decision on the negotiations has been made.

For those reasons it is premature to support this motion, which calls on the House to adopt a motion calling on the Government to halt the current sale process of the Port Macquarie car park because at the moment all we have are direct negotiations. I am confident that those negotiations are being done appropriately and under the watch of the external probity adviser. We need to allow that process to continue. As I said, I have met with the stakeholders, and I understand the issues. The local member, Leslie Williams, has been a strong advocate for ensuring that the Plan of Management for Port Macquarie is implemented and that the Government listens to the Port Macquarie community in terms of what it wants. At the moment the plan of management still needs to go through the implementation stage. We will continue to do that, regardless of what happens with the site. We need to allow the current process to continue. To pass this motion in the way it is worded would be premature, and it may be a moot point at the moment. We do not know. We need to allow the process to continue. So the Government opposes the motion.

Dr MEHREEN FARUQI [11.35 a.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I make a contribution to the motion of the Hon. Mick Veitch. Members are well aware of my connection to Port Macquarie. It was home to my family and me for some years; my children proudly went to school at Port Macquarie Primary and Port Macquarie High. Indeed, I joined The Greens in Port Macquarie. If there is anything I know about the people of the Hastings region it is this: they love their beautiful town, its beaches, its foreshores and its natural beauty. And they are passionate about their public spaces. Since having the responsibility of the lower North Coast as one of my portfolios, I have visited there a few times in the past couple of months. People have spoken to me about a variety of issues that concern them, but the one issue that everyone is talking about—indeed, they are outraged about it—is the process for the sale or negotiation for the sale, however the Minister might want to put it, of the Short Street Plaza car park.

The community was not consulted in the process and had little say in how the land should be managed. Again, however the Minister might want to put it, no-one can deny that there is a process underway, a process of negotiating a sale of public land with Woolworths, a process that has been opaque and continues the trend of this Government of locking out the people of New South Wales while big corporations and vested interests get a seat at the decision-making table. There is overwhelming community concern, and rightly so, about the sale of Crown land to a private corporation through a process that was transparent, that did not engage the public and that may not even require a land assessment because it seems that the Minister for Lands will waive the public interest test.

On 15 July I attended a Port Macquarie Hastings Council meeting when council expressed its ongoing strong objection to the sale of the Plaza car park site, being public land given freely to the Crown for the purpose of public car parking. Can the Minister explain how he came to the decision that selling off Crown land is in the best interests of the people of New South Wales? This issue, however, is not only about the sale of one piece of public land; the loss of public land sold off with no community input is increasingly common under this Government. This is about selling off New South Wales piece by piece, Crown land by Crown land. Not even rail corridors are safe from the Liberals' privatisation agenda. Across New South Wales public land is being eyed off by private interests for private profits, from Talus Trust land in Willoughby to King Edward Park in Newcastle.

A couple of months ago I was in Crowdy Head at the invitation of the community. They are trying to find a way to use the facilities of Crowdy Head Public School, which was closed last year, for community education and cultural awareness. The community is concerned that even this piece of land might be sold. I do not blame the community for being suspicious of the Government's motives. They are frustrated and tired of being taken for granted as private interests always seem to trump community needs. Recently at the Community Crown Lands summit hosted by The Greens planning spokesperson Mr David Shoebridge and the shadow Minister for Lands and Water, Labor's Mick Veitch, in Parliament House, retired lawyer John Owens explained the history of key binding principles laid down in the 1959 High Court case of Randwick Corporation v Rutledge. Mr Owens said:

Crown land held on trust for public recreation requires the land to remain open to the public generally as of right and not be a source of private profit.

Once public land has been set aside for public purpose no politician should be able to hand it over to private interest. Public land must remain in public hands. The Minister and the Government must suspend the sale of the car park, explain the process and decisions they have been undertaking, including how this sale is in the public interest, go back to the drawing board and ensure that any decision made about public land is made in an open and transparent process with genuine community consultation ensures that Crown land does remain public property. The motion calls on the Government to halt the current sale process and initiate a comprehensive, transparent and independent inquiry of the expression of interest process and the negotiations that have led to the current situation, including investigating the lack of adequate community consultation and the process leading to the adoption of the 2014 Plan of Management for Hastings Regional Crown Reserve Precinct A. Given the level of community concern about this issue, that is the bare minimum of what the Government should be doing.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [11.40 a.m.]: I speak to the motion on behalf of the Shooters and Fishers Party. The Hon. Mick Veitch is the Deputy Chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5. I became involved in this exercise at the behest of the chairman of the residents action group at Port Macquarie.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: Who is?

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: The Hon. John Tingle. I had a meeting on site with Mr Tingle and Mayor Peter Besseling—we even got some press.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: I did read that.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Yes. I told them I would talk to the Minister about his side of the story so far as this process was concerned. The local residents had deep concerns about some of the documentation, dates on letters, et cetera—I could not tell whether the smell was coming from that or from the fish cooperative down the street. At that time I told Mr Tingle that if this issue got out of hand—and it was becoming apparent that there was a bit of a stitch-up here, or a private deal was going on with Woolworths that was not above board—then I would talk to the other members of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5. However, I have explained to the Deputy Chair that the Shooters and Fishers Party will vote against the motion because we believe it may be a touch premature.

The Minister and the department should be given the opportunity to see how this teases out. I understand that Woolworths had a peculiar interest in this property because of its ownership of the old building at the front of the property and the fact that it contains asbestos. It is a requirement of the development application that the asbestos has to be removed. So the cost of redeveloping that small part of the site, added to the cost of the demolition involving asbestos removal, might have made the proposal less than favourable. If another half a hectare of flat land, for example, was included then perhaps the proposal would become more tenable. But that is not the point. All that land is public land and it is right on the foreshore—it might be asphalt filled with cars but it is still on the foreshore. The people of Newcastle rely on that car park. When I drove into that car park I had to drive around five times before I could find a parking spot.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Port Macquarie, not Newcastle.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Port Macquarie. Sorry, Freudian slip. We have been talking rail corridors. The Shooters and Fishers Party are not happy about the sale of Crown land for private purposes—and that does not apply to rail corridors, just in case some smarty pants wants to try and wedge me into a corner next week. Last week I was saying Wollongong so I am really confused. The Shooters and Fishers Party think that we should wait and see what transpires. If it stinks—and that is proven—then by all means shine the spotlight on it by referring the matter to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5. However, it is too soon to take that step. The Shooters and Fishers Party will not be supporting the motion.

The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS [11.45 a.m.]: I make a brief contribution to debate on the sale of the Port Macquarie Plaza car park against the wishes of the local community. I will not repeat the various issues outlined by the Hon. Mick Veitch in this motion. I have raised this matter in this place on a number of occasions. I begin by commending the shadow Minister for his advocacy and detailed knowledge of this issue. I join crossbench members who have contributed to this debate—and who have taken the time to visit the local community to hear their very significant community concerns—in calling for this process to be paused so that the sale can be discussed properly. In spite of the significant debate on this important local issue for the people of Port Macquarie, Mrs Leslie Williams, the local member, has not spoken a single word about it in the other place. She has failed to represent her community. If she disagrees with her local community—and 12,500 people have indicated that they take a different view to her—then she should explain why she disagrees.

It has been left to Minister Blair to defend his Government's actions. I welcome his comments that they will not make any decision that is not in the best interests of the people of Port Macquarie. If the Government does decide to sell this parcel of prime public land then it should explain to the community why its decision was in the best interests of the community. So far we have seen a secretive campaign and a bogus process that favours Woolworths, whilst community concerns are being ignored. The shadow Minister has tabled a petition, signed by 12,500 people in something like four weeks, voicing local opposition to this sale. The local council made its views known to the Government some time ago, and anyone who keeps up with the local media would know that this has been an issue. For some time now, front page after front page, story after story, questions about transparency, questions about the lack of process and terms like "anger growing" have featured.

At every step along the way the Government has arrogantly ignored the community in the hope that community concern will disappear. It has not. Indeed, the petition with 12,500 signatures is the latest example of the community wanting to be heard. Thankfully, the shadow Minister is advocating on their behalf. Today the Minister has emphasised that no final decision has been made on the matter—the Government can still change its mind. That is welcome news. But actions speak louder than words, and to date the actions of this Government have not paid much respect to the local community. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.48 a.m.]: My brief contribution to the debate on this motion is in support of comments made by the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water, the Hon. Niall Blair. We on this side of the House oppose the motion. As the Minister said, the expression of interest [EOI] process was open and transparent. It was overseen by an independent probity adviser. On 30 July the Minister visited Port Macquarie to hear directly the concerns of council about this issue. The Minister has made it clear that the Government will ensure parking will be protected by way of a public positive covenant in any future development of the site. Importantly, the site has not been sold and the final decision on this issue has not been made. The Government will not make any decision that is not in the best interests of the Port Macquarie community. Indeed, the local member, the Hon. Leslie Williams, will ensure that is the case.

The Hon. Leslie Williams is a fantastic local member. She does a great job representing her community. She has undertaken extensive community consultation on this issue. As the Minister outlined clearly, while the expressions of interest process has been completed, negotiations are not yet concluded and absolutely nothing has been finalised in regard to the sale of this land. The background to this issue is outlined extensively in paragraph (1) of the motion. The site was offered for sale through an EOI process from 12 January to 6 February. The EOI was managed by the Department of Primary Industries and an independent commercial real estate agent was engaged. The process was overseen by an independent probity adviser. The EOI was promoted through a New South Wales e-tender, the agent's database and website and printed publications. Several media outlets covered the EOI, with 21 inquiries received by the agent and two proposals lodged. An assessment panel reviewed the submissions and Fabcot Pty Ltd was nominated as the preferred proponent. Fabcot is the development arm of Woolworths.

On 29 June parties were advised of the decision. The department has informed Fabcot of the requirements of the formal negotiation process and the Woolworths board approved negotiations on the sale. Negotiations have commenced under the guidance of a probity adviser. Direct negotiations are the legitimate process for selling Crown land. Decisions to enter into negotiations are carefully considered, taking into account the Independent Commission Against Corruption's Guidelines for Managing Risks in Direct Negotiations. The Minister spoke eloquently about the direct negotiations process, so I will not address that issue. He also talked about measures taken to mitigate Woolworths' benefit of prior negotiations when assessing the submissions. I put on record my support for the Minister.

The Government has listened to the Port Macquarie community, the council and the fabulous local member, the Hon. Leslie Williams. We have ensured that existing car park spaces at the Port Macquarie Plaza are protected through the public positive covenant should the site be sold. The covenant means any new owner will be bound to protect the existing car park spaces in any future development of the site. I am confident that the Minister has outlined the Government's position on this. I oppose this motion.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [11.53 a.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I contribute to debate on this motion. On 29 June 2015 the Department of Primary Industries announced that it would enter direct negotiations with Woolworths for the sale of the Port Macquarie Plaza car park site. An expression of interest process was staged earlier this year. This attracted 21 inquiries but only two full proposals. I understand that Port Macquarie-Hastings Council was the other interested party. It argued that it should remain in public hands. Crown Lands had earlier negotiated directly with Woolworths but had ceased those negotiations before the expression of interest process was announced. The acting director of strategic projects with Crown Lands, Phil Fogarty, is quoted as having said in a media article that in the end Woolworths made the better bid. I quote:

"Valuable land like that—it's the Government's intention to see these assets properly utilised," he said.

"And a car park does not cut it."

"The opportunity is to activate that end of town."

The article continued:

Mr Fogarty said there were a number of requirements in the EOI process, and the proposal from Woolworths met them.

"Price was an important consideration, as was how their proposal would marry in with the plan of management for the area," he said.

"An evaluation panel was brought together, and they rated and recommended that we should proceed to negotiate with Woolworths.

Mayor Peter Besseling said "the sale to Woolworths is about generating a quick cash windfall for the State Government." He said that the land belongs to the public and should remain that way. I quote:

"It is a quick cash grab and the Port Macquarie residents and Port Macquarie CBD will have to deal with the consequences of it," he said.

"The Chamber of Commerce are against it, Council are against it—the community wants to see that land developed into the longer term for the benefit of the community.

Councillor Besseling said he is disappointed but not surprised by the decision.

"In one corner we will have Dan Murphys, in another we will have a Woolworths—welcome to the Port Macquarie CBD," he said.

"Which is going to generate a lot of traffic. How we are going to deal with that I don't know.

"Ultimately it will be the State Government who decides what goes on the site.

Woolworths says it will keep the community informed throughout the negotiation process. A Woolworths spokesperson said the Port Macquarie community has known of their plans for some time.

"Woolworths has been communicating with the community, council and the state Government for some time about our proposed plans to redevelop the Food for Less site, including seeking to purchase the plaza car park from Crown Lands," he said.

From my time as a councillor and mayor I understand that big corporates do have a bit of money to splash around and they do create jobs. Some people think there should be jobs at any cost, but good local councillors and mayors understand that there should not be jobs at any cost. Indeed, there are community expectations about the protection of amenities in urban areas.

Mr David Shoebridge: There is a finite amount of public land.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: Yes. About 75 per cent of the area in the Shoalhaven consists of national parks and about 20 per cent is Crown land. That land is pretty well locked up by lots of layers of the local environment plan. Land is even scarcer in central business district areas. That brings to mind areas such as Huskisson and the iconic Huskisson view—

The Hon. Rick Colless: Hotel.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: —from next to the Husky pub. In fact, I invite all members to have a meal sitting on that beautiful point while watching the whales migrate north. They have done a wonderful job developing that site.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: A whale oil processing centre.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: That is further south, at Eden—that is killer whale that brought all the whales in. It has a really good museum. It is worth visiting. At Huskisson we have done everything we can to protect the view corridor not only for the community but for the many thousands of tourists who visit. That view corridor did have a development consent over it—it was ripe to develop. But the question was not whether the RSL, who owned the property—I think it still does—had a right to develop. The RSL was trying to find the middle ground between getting a return on the property to deal with its growth and what it would like to do, as much as council would like to purchase that and keep the view corridor. And of course others were happy to put a commercial development on there, which was quite within the scope of the local environment plan and stuff like that.

I am happy to say that finally, after probably 10 or 15 years, that outcome has resolved itself and that view corridor will stay because council was able to secure it. It would have made tens of thousands of dollars for any commercial development on that site, but I do not think there has been any better investment for that particular site than leaving it at ground level. The council was of a view to maybe do something below ground level which could stimulate local opportunities—pedestrianisation, cafés, restaurants and other stuff like that.

The Hon. Walt Secord: Do you go up to Port Macquarie for the underground views?

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: No, this is at Huskisson where it comes up on the hill. I am mindful about Crown Lands, view corridors and these significant places. There is no doubt that the probity issues have been dealt with by the Government in the way it has moved through this. Transparent processes are needed when dealing with things like this which are of great public interest. Public interest needs to be taken into account and does not always give an economic return. It gives social capital and it might give an environmental return—it will provide other returns—but it may not give an economic benefit in term of jobs, rent or landlord fees and all the stuff that comes with that. I am very aware that there are two sides to every story. From what I understand, the residents would prefer to keep this land in public hands.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: You have done better than Sarah; she spoke for only five minutes.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: Given the fact that I have to get in the chair, I should move on. At the end of the day, you have to have a roundtable, come to the discussion and really try to lead. The mayor has a contract with the community to try to get the best outcome for the community and if that is purchasing the property for the long-term benefit of the community, so be it. If it is keeping the property for future uses and not flogging it off to a corporation, so be it. Having been burnt by major projects coming into places and using their influence and money to get around the planning instruments, I must admit I am always a bit suspicious when a corporate giant comes in to take the best ground in our urban areas, on some occasions, for their own profit-making opportunities. That is what it is at the end of the day—they are trying to bless their shareholders, the mums and dads. Unfortunately, short-term gain may be the community's long-term pain.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [12.03 p.m.]: Around the State public land is being eyed off by developers and by the big supermarket chains—by carpetbaggers, basically—who know that with a Coalition Government they have a government that views public land solely through an economic lens: How much can it get out of it? How much can it sell it for? How can it maximise the financial return on public land regardless of what the local community wants? And there at Port Macquarie, right near the centre of the central business district, right on the edge of the water, is a precious piece of public land that the community does not want sold. They are very clear about it.

What does this Government do? This Government does as it has done time and time again: it just ignores what the community wants and enters into a nice little private set of behind-closed-doors negotiations with a large corporate interest to see how it can maximise the financial returns, and bugger the local residents. And what has it been doing? Since 2012 this Government has been shutting doors, sitting in closed rooms with closed negotiations with Woolworths, working out how it can sell the land to Woolworths and maximise a one-off financial return—or maybe it is an ongoing lease payment. The Government's only concern seems to be how much it can make out of just another parcel of public land that it flogs off or leases.

Having commenced negotiations with Woolworths in 2012 and not having bothered to trouble the locals about having a publicly accepted plan of management for this land, the Government eventually put on notice an updated plan of management which was not supported and not adopted. We wind through until the middle of 2014. By then the council and the local community are very clear what they want. They want the Government to stop the sale. They want the Government to ensure that the land remains under the control of local residents. In fact, in the middle of last year Mayor Peter Besseling—doing the work of a good local mayor; talking to his local residents, trying to work out what they want—decided to hold a public meeting, call people together and get their views. One would think that is something the State Government would do; but of course if it asks people what their views are on this, they will tell it.

I invite the Minister to go to Port Macquarie and put out a little card table at the front of the proposed land sale. He should put a little "Minister for consultation" notice up and see what the locals say. A queue will form and one after the other people will say, "Minister, do not sell the land. Minister, we want to retain public access to the foreshore. Minister, do not keep these private negotiations with Woolworths. Talk to our mayor and keep it in community hands." Mayor Peter Besseling, in his letter to then Minister for Natural Resources, Lands and Water, Kevin Humphries, about the meeting that he held on the evening of Monday 16 June 2014 in a community workshop at the Glasshouse in Port Macquarie, had this to say, among other things:

There remains a great deal of discomfort with the manner in which Crown Lands has approached the in-principle sale of public land to Woolworths, through an exclusive negotiation. The aforementioned "Public Interest Test", the waiving of a Land Assessment and the exclusion of public competition via an Expression of Interest for the sale of the site, are the subject of ongoing concerns that are consistent with the findings of the report, whereby an open and transparent involvement "evoked a strong response".

He went on to say:

Furthermore, access and amenity in relation to the foreshore along Kooloonbung Creek was highlighted several times in response to questions put to workshop attendees, along with feedback through other consultation.

So what did the Government do? It waited until nobody was looking. It decided that it would do the kind of standard Crown Lands thing—although I give it credit that this time it was not on 24 December that it put out its proposed new draft plan of management and its expression of interest. I assume Crown Lands simply had not got the paperwork together by Christmas Eve. No doubt Christmas Eve was the original plan, because that is pretty much the usual date that Crown Lands puts out its public consultation process. It sends a letter to the mayor on Christmas Eve and says, "By the way, get back to us by 12 January otherwise it will all have happened."

Crown Lands obviously did not get its act together by Christmas Eve. So it came into work on, I think, 12 January, no doubt when it thought, "All of the locals will be looking. No-one will be on school holidays. Nobody will be on a nice long summer holiday! No—that never happens in the middle of January!" So on 12 January the Government announced the adoption of a new Crown Lands plan of management. But it has been busy. It has been really busy over that little Christmas break. Good on the Crown Lands people and the hardworking ministerial office—how busy they have been, as always, over Christmas. I reckon there must be no leave granted to the Crown Lands department over Christmas. There must be a standing direction that people in Crown Lands are not allowed to take leave from 1 December to the middle of January, because that is when they can do a proper job on the community; that is when they can adopt some new plans of management; that is when they can put out the sale notices; that is when they can do their best work.

Lands officials from the Department of Primary Industries worked over the Christmas break to 12 January so they could release their new draft plan of management. On 13 January, the very next day—no doubt they were still covered in a little bit of turkey gravy and Christmas pudding—the new expression of interest process was released. Who would have thought that in the middle of the summer holidays they would release a new expression of interest process? On 14 January, the hardworking local member for Port Macquarie—who also was not taking a Christmas break—realised her local residents wanted to hear from her and she is quoted as saying she will update the community on the expression of interest time line and pending sale of the car park in the weeks ahead. The local community said thank you very much. It was the usual Christmas snow job. The local community said, "Stop it."

I wonder who would win an expression of interest process that was opened in the middle of January when only one corporate entity—Woolworths—had been involved in negotiations for 2½ years. Surprise, surprise: Woolworths won that process. Residents are not stupid. Citizens are not mugs. They know when they are being taken for a ride by a government. They know when there is a nonsense process designed to do a job on them and that is exactly what happened in Port Macquarie. The council has not been asking for a free ride. The council understands that there is land that is owned by the State Government, but the council and the community want to be treated with respect and to be involved. On 25 July last year, in another letter to the Hon. Kevin Humphries, the then Minister for Natural Resources, Lands and Water, the mayor said:

Council wishes to enter into negotiations in good faith with the New South Wales Government for the purchase of the abovementioned site. Furthermore, council would appreciate the same opportunity that has been afforded to other parties in response to direct negotiation and requests details of the relevant contact person within your department so these negotiations can begin forthwith.

The Government ignored that approach from the council and opened its expression of interest process in the middle of the summer holidays after having had 2½ years of secret negotiations behind closed doors with Woolworths, and Woolworths won. That is an embarrassing joke of a process and the local residents know it. This motion notes:

Of course that should happen. This House should go further. This House should have a full and open public inquiry as to how public land in this State is being managed and mismanaged. What has happened in Port Macquarie is being repeated in the remainder of the State, whether it is an oceanside park in Wollongong, the Paddington Bowling Club, the Talus Trust in Willoughby, caravan parks at Brunswick Heads, or coastal reserves up and down the State. The carpetbaggers are sitting over there, wanting to pick off our public land. This State Government is desperate to sell anything—sell it, lease it, rent it, develop it—and it looks at opportunities only through economic interests.

If the Government wants to go ahead with this parcel of public land at Port Macquarie and persist with its one-eyed sale process to Woolworths—ignoring the local mayor, local residents and local council—it will have to gazette a revocation of the land or reserve. Of course, the Minister can do that only by publishing a notice in the Government Gazette to revoke a dedication under section 84 of the Crown Lands Act or revoke the whole or a part of a reserve under section 90 of the Crown Lands Act. The relevant authority, which is the Lands division of the Department of Primary Industries, has to lodge its request and we have not heard whether that request has been lodged.

I give a commitment on behalf of The Greens New South Wales that if there is a Government Gazette notice seeking to revoke in whole or in part the reserve or any part of the reservation, The Greens will move or support the Labor Party, the Christian Democratic Party or the Shooters and Fishers Party to disallow the notice so that the land remains in public hands. Dr Mehreen Faruqi is passionate about this piece of land in Port Macquarie and I commend her words. My colleague the Hon. Jan Barham is fighting for public land up and down the North Coast of this State and is facing the exact same struggles. We will stand with the community of Port Macquarie and we will use our votes to disallow any Government Gazette notice. If the Government does not see the light, we urge the majority of members in this House to join us to keep the land in public hands.

The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN [12.15 p.m.]: What a beat-up this is. It is being driven by the current Mayor Peter Besseling, who met with Tony Kelly in 2010 to start the process for the sale of the site but who is now in cahoots with those opposite who are happy to help him throw his toys because he did not get his way. I am obviously sympathetic to the fact that Mayor Peter Besseling did not get his way but, unfortunately for him, all necessary statutory requirements in accordance with the Crown Lands Act have been met throughout the process.

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council has undergone extensive planning for the site through various council initiatives and its own foreshore plan of management supports commercial development of the site. In 2014 direct negotiations with Woolworths were stopped because Port Macquarie-Hastings Council expressed an interest in purchasing the land for commercial development. As it was reported on the front page of the Port Macquarie News, the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council wanted the site sold and commercially developed and it wanted to buy the site for $1. Port Macquarie-Hastings Council wants the site commercially developed as part of opening up the foreshore. Although no final decision has been made regarding the future of the site, the Woolworths plan included specialty stores as well as the opportunities for cafés and restaurants along the foreshore and undercover parking.

Port Macquarie Chamber of Commerce President Haydn Oriti has always pushed for activating the foreshore. Woolworths knows that the foreshore is already reasonably active and this development will provide that commercial drawcard. The Port Macquarie-Hastings Council wants the site sold and commercially developed and it fits with the foreshore plan of management. The issue is that the mayor has thrown his toys away because he did not get his way. Those opposite are happy to help him but it is unfortunate for them that Woolworths won the expression of interest. As much as the mayor and Opposition members want to cry blue murder, the facts remain that the expression of interest process was a transparent process and it was overseen by an independent probity adviser.

Let us go through the expression of interest process because the Opposition and The Greens have misunderstood it. The land was advertised for sale by expression of interest through a commercial real estate agent advertisement in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review as well as through NSW eTendering, and it was covered by many media outlets. In fact, 21 inquiries were received by the agent, with two full submissions. The expressions of interest were then assessed in line with the terms and criteria of the expression of interest and the panel assessing the applications was overseen by an independent probity adviser. Ultimately, Woolworths was assessed as the preferred candidate in accordance with the terms of the expression of interest for the sale of the site.

The valuation criteria called for evidence on how expressions of interest responses would meet the requirements of the plan of management and the Local Environmental Plan. The panel that evaluated the expressions of interest responses included departmental personnel and an external agent that had no previous role in the negotiations with Woolworths. Again, it was overseen by the probity adviser. How much more independence do we need in this process?

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: It is not the process; it is the outcome they are concerned about.

The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN: I acknowledge that interjection. Let us get to the crux of the community opposition that the Hon. Mick Veitch is trying to tap into on behalf of the mayor. Unfortunately for him, council and the community clearly support commercial development of the site as part of a greater foreshore plan. What they do not support is losing their public car parks in the Port Macquarie central business district. I am sure that the mayor could get 12,000 signatures by telling people that they were going to lose their car parks. Unfortunately for the Hon. Mick Veitch, the Minister for Lands and the member for Port Macquarie fixed this issue last week.

At the urging of local member Leslie Williams, who has been consulting with the community widely on this issue, the existing car parking spaces in the Plaza car park are protected through a public positive covenant should the site be sold. That means that any new owner will be bound to protect the existing car parks in any future development of the site. That covenant will apply to any owner of the site. Furthermore, the preferred bidder in the current expression-of-interest process has agreed to its being discussed publicly in accordance with the negotiation protocol.

This motion suggests that the process has ridden roughshod over the local council. This is simply not true. Port Macquarie-Hastings Council has known for many years about Woolworths' plan for the site. In fact, it even organised two community stakeholder meetings to show what was being planned. Yet there was not one word of opposition. Furthermore, Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, as the local planning authority, is responsible for key planning tools in relation to this site. These plans must be considered in determining any development application for this site. If the sale is eventually finalised Port Macquarie-Hastings Council is the approving authority for any redevelopment.

It is going to be the council's job to work with the landowner to ensure the site is developed in accordance with planning requirements, and facilitate consultation with the community. Council is also trust manager for much of the foreshore and is responsible for implementing the approved plan of management. Furthermore, according to the Development Control Plan 2011, should the site be sold, the development application process will include public exhibition for comment prior to determination. It was not only the council; the community also had opportunity to comment on the proposed use of the Plaza car park and adjoining foreshore lands. The Hastings Regional Crown Reserves Plan of Management was publicly exhibited three times before it was finally adopted in 2015. This is a widely used land use planning and management process, and is a solid mechanism for involving the community.

The Hon. Mick Veitch, who moved the motion, has put some background into this process in his motion. Members will see that paragraph (e) of the motion says that "in 2013, an updated 'Draft Plan of Management for Hastings Regional Crown Reserve Precinct A' was placed on exhibition and received 239 submissions" and that the draft plan was not adopted. The Hon. Mick Veitch says that "in 2014, a significantly revised 'Draft Plan of Management for Hastings Regional Crown Reserve Precinct A' was placed on exhibition and received only nine submissions". That is a successful community consultation process by anyone's standards. Two hundred and thirty-nine submissions were received, Crown Lands worked through the submissions, considered the issues that were raised, amended the draft plan and placed it on exhibition again. The community was so happy with it that Crown Lands received only nine submissions back. That is an utterly reasonable public consultation process as far as I and the community are concerned.

Let us not forget that the draft plan clearly says that the car park was to be earmarked as future commercial development. Furthermore, the Foreshore Land Advisory Group, which was chaired by the excellent member for Port Macquarie, Leslie Williams, involved representatives from council, the Chamber of Commerce, members of the community and members of the local foreshore land protection group. They were consulted, they were involved, and they made their own submissions to the Draft Plan of Management for Hastings Council, which was informed and facilitated by the hardworking local member.

This was an open and transparent process and Crown Lands considered all original submissions, having only nine submissions on the draft plan. Yes—I admit it—it was adopted by the Government, as it should have been. The Local Environment Plan 2011—the LEP—which is the main planning document regulating the development and use of land in the Port Macquarie-Hastings local government area, was publicly exhibited by council in 2010, and the Plaza car park was, and is, zoned B3—core commercial, under the LEP. The development control plan 2011, which provides development guidelines and planning frameworks for the future development, is the plan that includes the land uses, road hierarchy, built form design views, and open spaces. This was also publicly exhibited—it does not sound like much of a cover-up to me—by council in 2010, prior to its adoption.

The Hon. Mick Veitch wants to point to the fact that there was no assessment. Let us look at what happened. There was a Hastings Regional Crown Reserves Plan of Management that was publicly displayed three times before it was adopted. Although it is not an official planning instrument, it shows the community support for commercial development. There is a local environment plan regulating the development and use of land in the local government area, and there is a development control plan, which provides guidelines for future development. These are legitimate and comprehensive planning instruments and management processes, all of which considered the future use capability of the site.

Let us look at all of the planning instruments covering the site, and when they were available for comment. There was the draft plan of management, available for comment in 2010, 2013 and 2014. The local environment plan was available for public comment in 2010. The development control plan was available for public comment in 2010. The Port Macquarie Foreshore Vision and Masterplan was available in 2008. The Town Centre Masterplan was available in 2013. That is a lot of public consultation, openness and transparency.

A land assessment was never going to change the nature of these planning instruments, nor would it have delivered any additional information about the site. Waiver of land assessment is a legitimate process in accordance with the Crown Lands Act. Given the extensive planning applying to the site, all of which were available for public comment before their adoption, and all of which support the commercial development site—as does the council and the community—a land assessment was not required, and would not have any outcome whatsoever. It saddens me to say this, but this is a beat-up.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: Point of order: The Hon. Ben Franklin is misleading the House. In no way is he saddened by this comment.

The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN: I will take that as a comment. This is a beat-up. All planning aspects relating to the commercial development of this site have been produced with considerable community consultation. All of them support the commercial redevelopment of the site. The expression of interest process for commercial development clearly satisfied all statutory requirements in accordance with the Crown Lands Act. I am sorry that the Hon. Mick Veitch—he is an honourable man—has been roped into doing Mayor Peter Besseling's dirty work with the promise of backlash over parking, which has now been resolved due to the excellent work of local member Leslie Williams. But the so-called independent mayor, who has been having the members opposite do his dirty work, only proves what I have been saying for years: vote Independent, get Labor.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.28 p.m.]: I compliment the Hon. Ben Franklin on the way he summed up so well what is happening with the politics in Port Macquarie. It is unfortunate that the last few speakers on the other side of the Chamber have talked about this "conspiracy" that is happening in relation to Crown land in New South Wales. Members of The Greens have made comments about public land remaining as public land. There would be no farmland. There would be no freehold land for housing. Perhaps that is what The Greens want. The Greens do not want people to own freehold land. The Greens do not want people to own their own land. The Greens want all landholdings to be retained as public domain. In case non-government members do not realise it, a procedure that quite often is invoked in New South Wales, when government requires freehold land for public purposes, is resumption.

It is important to reiterate key points concerning the expression of interest [EOI] process, which was open and transparent. The site was offered for sale through an expression of interest process that was open from 12 January to 6 February 2015 and managed by the Department of Primary Industries through its Crown Lands division. An independent commercial real estate agent was engaged and the process was overseen by an independent probity adviser. They are important points to remember. As the Minister stated earlier, he visited the site on 30 July. He met the council and discussed the council's concerns. I reiterate that the Government will ensure that parking will be protected on that site by a public positive covenant in any future development of the site.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: Free parking?

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: The people of Port Macquarie will not lose their car parking spaces: They will be protected. But it is important to remember a point made by the Hon. Ben Franklin: At this point in time, there has been no sale and no final decision has been made. There has been an extensive process of public consultation such that the people of Port Macquarie must realise what is happening. The expression of interest process was promoted through New South Wales eTendering and the agent's database and website printed all publications. Several media outlets also covered the process. As stated earlier, the agent received 21 inquiries and two proposals were lodged. One of the proposals was submitted by Fabcot Pty Limited, which is the commercial arm of Woolworths and, as the Hon. Ben Franklin pointed out, the other submission was from the Port Macquarie Hastings Council, which was accompanied by an offer of $1 for the transfer. The assessment panel reviewed the submissions and Fabcot Pty Limited was nominated as the preferred proponent.

Although the EIO process has concluded, the negotiations process has not and is ongoing. Absolutely nothing in relation to this matter has been finalised. All the statutory requirements of the Crown Lands Act have been met and the Port Macquarie Hastings Council, as the local planning authority, is responsible for the key planning tools in relation to the site. That means that plans must be considered in determining any development application relating to this site by the council. Direct negotiations such as those that occurred with Woolworths early in the piece are a legitimate process of selling Crown land, despite what has been said by some non-government members. The decisions to enter into direct negotiations are carefully considered and take into account the Independent Commission Against Corruption's guidelines for managing risk in direct negotiation. All those matters have been taken into consideration.

In 2010 Woolworths submitted an unsolicited proposal to the department to explore potential development of a combined site in Port Macquarie that included Woolworths' freehold land and the adjoining Crown land reserve, which is known as the Plaza car park. Those direct negotiations were approved on 16 November 2010, under delegation, due to unique factors in the Woolworths' proposal arising from its freehold ownership of the adjoining parcel of land. The then Director General of New South Wales Trade and Investment supported continued direct negotiations in August 2013. The direct negotiations were discontinued in 2014 when the Port Macquarie Hastings Council also expressed an interest in purchasing the land. The community has had an opportunity to comment on the proposed use of the car park and adjoining foreshore lands through key land-use planning and management processes, which were all publicly exhibited, as the Hon. Ben Franklin pointed out.

It is my view that the whole process has been open and transparent. All interested parties have had an opportunity to respond. Transparency and equity were assured through that process by the appointment of a probity auditor to oversee and advise on probity aspects of the process; by appointment of an external agent to manage the EOI process, including all communications with candidates; and through the EOI information memorandum fully disclosing all issues, opportunities and constraints relevant to the site, including planning documents, to any prospective purchaser from a planning point of view. Evaluation criteria call for evidence on how expression of interest responses would meet the requirements of the plan of management and the local environmental plan. The panel that evaluated EOI responses included departmental personnel and an external agent with no previous role in negotiating with Woolworths, and it was overseen by the probity adviser.

I state my intention to oppose the motion. The process has been properly executed. I invite non-government members, as the Hon. Robert Brown did, by all means to keep an eye on developments. If they think later on there is a problem with it, the Government will take another look at it. But I am confident that the process will deal with the issue satisfactorily.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [12.36 p.m.]: Mr Deputy-President—

The Hon. Mick Veitch: We are trying to talk it out.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: But my contribution to the debate is interesting.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: I will give notice of a motion—"Mr Scot MacDonald spoke in debate on Thursday".

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: I thank the Hon. Mick Veitch for his encouragement.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: It is perfectly legitimate for Mr Scot MacDonald to speak during this debate because he is the duty member for northern New South Wales.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: Yes. This debate falls under my province as the province member of the Legislative Council [MLC] for the beautiful area of Port Macquarie. Having noted that I am the province MLC, I also note that there is a very passionate advocate for the area in the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Assistant Minister for Education, the Hon. Leslie Williams. I have backed Leslie Williams since she ran as a candidate a couple of elections ago.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: You are trying to keep her honest, are you? You are the Liberal duty MLC.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: The Hon. Leslie Williams is a great member of Parliament. The Plaza car park site has been part of a proposed draft plan of management since 2010. I note the cries that this issue has been foisted upon the community lately or has come out of left field, but of course nothing could be further from the truth. The Port Macquarie Hastings Council suddenly has shown a little bit of interest, which is good, but really is playing catch-up. As I said, the first draft plan of management was proposed in 2010. The council then had the opportunity to show some interest, but the council took little interest at that stage. One hundred and sixty submissions were received from members of the public.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: This is the expression of interest process to which you refer?

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: The point of the Hon. Mick Veitch's interjection is not correct. The council is now saying that an opportunity will be lost to the community whereas the council had approximately five years in which to engage in this process but failed substantially to do so, except for the past few months. I am often a visitor to Port Macquarie, which is a developing hub. Port Macquarie is a city in its own right and its development is coming together.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: It is a city on the move.

Mr SCOT MacDONALD: It is a city on the move, and it is pining for economic development. Economic development is occurring in the Short and William streets area. It was incumbent on Crown Lands to call for expressions of interest, which resulted in the receipt of 21 inquiries but only two full proposals. The Port Macquarie Hastings Council entered the process at the last minute with a lot of advice but, unfortunately, nothing substantial except commentary, which is flowing freely.

The future of that area is important to those who value Port Macquarie. What is important is that this Crown land has a future for all the people of Port Macquarie, not just the noisy minority objecting to this proposal. I tend to take notice of the people we do not hear from, that is, the silent majority who expect a retail precinct to which they can drive and park and access Woollies. Woollies already has a presence in Port Macquarie so this will be a bigger, more accessible presence. The development has gone through a sound probity process. Obviously members opposite are playing politics, which is unfortunate. We see that a lot from The Greens, and now the Labor Party is referring to the same song sheet. It is stirring up the community, looking for the conspiracy, and not talking about the substantial issues in Port Macquarie, including the Pacific Highway upgrades in the area and the jobs we are generating in that region. It is simply using an issue to scare and divide the local community.

I suggest that most people in the Port Macquarie community are satisfied that the draft plans have been put together properly and the expression of interest process was followed properly. What we need to do, as we do for much of the State, is move on and remove uncertainty which drives away investment. It is not only the larger retailers, because smaller retailers often hang off the larger anchored tenants. If we provide certainty about the future of this Crown land site the specialty shops will join together and invest in retail by taking out a lease. Why do we have this media-generated scaremongering? Why are members opposite hesitant about and resistant to developing the area? The motion is opportunistic and political. It treats poorly the people of Port Macquarie who have been dealing with this issue on a personal and commercial basis for years. They want certainty. The motion is shallow, and I firmly reject it. We must move on.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [12.42 p.m.]: I was not planning to speak on this motion. However, the contribution of The Greens has forced me to say a few words about the bizarre notions they have put forward. In particular, Dr Mehreen Faruqi said that there are "vested interests" working behind the scenes. One wonders who those vested interests are. I am reminded of the great words of the American historian Richard Hofstadter, who talked about the paranoid style in American politics. Of course, he was writing about the hard Right of the United States back in the 1960s.

But as times changed Hofstadter also changed his views and came to realise that the contemporary paranoid style in American politics came from the hard Left. That is not surprising, given the contributions of the Greens around the world but in this State in particular. These vested interests, these faceless men and women—presumably women because The Greens want to maintain gender equity—are working behind the scenes and secretly pulling the strings. Where is the evidence? Where is the proof? Where is the validation for their arguments? It is not to be seen, because The Greens do not need facts to make speeches. They simply need paranoid conspiracies to sustain them.

The Greens have indicated that they oppose the sale of Crown land. The hard Left element of The Greens—the old Trotskyite, Marxist element of The Greens and in some cases the Stalinist element of The Greens—is not only opposed to the sale of Crown land; it is opposed to the existence of private land in the first place. The Greens do not want less Crown land sold; they want more private land acquired for Crown land. But they would not call it Crown land; they would call it something else—perhaps "land held by the gallant commissars of the republic in honour of the glorious workers of the revolution". That is probably a little closer to the dream, the vision, the utopia that the contemporary Greens in New South Wales seek. The Greens are opposed not only to the sale of this piece of Crown land; they are opposed to the sale of any Crown land at any time at any place for any reason. Why?

While Labor members are going through a sensible re-examination of whether they wish to maintain the socialist ideal, the socialist objective, the very nature of socialism in their party, The Greens have unanimously accepted that the time of socialist revival, of Marxist revival, is here and now, and they want to be the vanguards of this proposal. When The Greens, none of whom is here for this debate, talk about how they oppose the sale of rail corridors, I wonder why they are silent on the sale of Crown land for the road corridors that were sold off by Neville Wran. They are keen to complain about the underground works for the M4 and M5 but they completely ignore the fact that Neville Wran sold off the land. If that land had not been sold we would not have needed underground land.

Of course, The Greens do not accept that. They do not criticise the Wran Government for that, but they are quite happy to talk about the sale of land corridors for railway lines when, in many instances, those railway lines are now defunct. Presumably The Greens are not still pining over the loss of the Captain's Flat Railway Act, which was repealed in the first term of this Government. Whatever merits the Captain's Flat to Lake George railway may have had in the nineteenth century when it was proposed, it probably does not merit a great deal of consideration in 2015.

However, The Greens would say that that is an improper use of government power. Once the Government acquires land it should never be given up, in spite of the rationality of occasionally giving back Crown land to the private sector. I would say it should go a bit further. I love the idea of Crown land being sold off. It is fantastic; it is wonderful. The more Crown land we can sell off, the better. I love seeing assets move from the public sector or the government sector to the private sector. That is a wonderful prospect for the future. I would love to see more of it. We must remember a point made earlier by the Hon. Ben Franklin, whose contribution to this debate was excellent, as are all his contributions.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: You sound surprised.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: No. I am entirely unsurprised, having known the Hon. Ben Franklin for many years. His oratorical skills are legendary. He made the good point that a covenant will be put in place to ensure that the car park arrangements are retained. That is an important point, at least because I can make the horrendous pun that this will be known as the car park of the covenant. We oppose the motion.

The Hon. MICK VEITCH [12.48 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for participating in the debate: the Minister, the Hon. Niall Blair, Dr Mehreen Faruqi, the Hon. Courtney Houssos, the Hon. Robert Brown, the Hon. Sarah Mitchell, the Hon. Paul Green, Mr David Shoebridge, the Hon. Ben Franklin, the Hon. Rick Colless, Mr Scot MacDonald and the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps. There were some interesting and contrasting contributions. For me the most important thing that came out of this debate were the comments of the Hon. Robert Brown, where he put the Minister on notice that, although this motion would appear to be going down on the vote, the process would be monitored very closely by a number of people in the Chamber.

If it is not right, if there is a smell around this process at the end, then the Hon. Robert Brown's commitment to the Minister that this will then go to GPSC5 for inquiry is putting everyone on notice that there is a degree of concern about the process that is being followed. That is the serious point of the whole exercise. There is concern. I drew from the Minister's comments a degree of concern in the sense that the covenant talks about preserving the car park. The issue is free car parking, and where it is located. That is the issue that the majority of people who speak to us are concerned about.

I would like to draw attention to some other contributions. I am hoping the Hon. Ben Franklin has calmed down, cooled down and had a drink of water since his quite enthusiastic contribution. The problem with the Hon. Ben Franklin's contribution is I am just not sure which parts of it I can use in my press release because it was all quite valuable and will certainly get a good run in Port Macquarie—maybe in more than one press release. I may be able to derive several from his contribution. The reason that there was action taken last week is that the Government was embarrassed into action. It did not just happen. Those commitments that were made last week did not just happen. People on the other side were embarrassed into doing something. That is what happens when there is community agitation and concern. I applaud members of the community for raising these concerns in the way that they have. There are a number of people concerned about what is happening here and they are watching the process, and that is why things had to happen.

I think the Hon. Ben Franklin did overstep the mark when he essentially implied it is all the council's fault and that there is nothing to see here. I think the attack on the independent mayor in the context of the debate, which up until that point had been relatively civil, was a bit over the line. The contributions from the Hon. Rick Colless and the Hon. Ben Franklin were a slap in the face to the 12,662 people who signed that petition. I do not think those people would be in any way comforted by their comments. As longer-term members of the Chamber would know, any petition with a large number of signatures has to be taken seriously by all people in the Chamber, and I think that was a slap in the face for Government members. I do not think the Hon. Ben Franklin's comments helped the member for Port Macquarie at all. I think he may have made her job a darn sight harder. That is something for him to take up with his colleague.

I urge the community to agitate for the continued surveillance and inspection of the process. In my closing comments I draw attention to Mr Scot MacDonald's speech. The problem with being asked to do a filibuster is that you actually need to know the subject matter that is contained in the motion. It was pretty clear from his contribution that he did not know and did not understand the motion. Filibustering in this place is a talent, and he just does not have it. I commend the motion to the House.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

MEMBER FOR EAST HILLS AND 2015 STATE ELECTION

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [12.53 p.m.]: I move:

(1) That this House notes that during the 2015 election there were a number of alleged breaches of the Parliamentary Electorates and Election Act 1912 in the East Hills electorate by the member for East Hills, Mr Glenn Brookes, MP, including:

(a) the distribution throughout the electorate and on polling booths of an unauthorised illegal leaflet attacking the Labor candidate, Mr Cameron Murphy by Mr Brookes' electoral staffer Mr Jim Daniel;

(b) the sending of an email from Mr Brookes' personal parliamentary electorate account to local journalists, community and sporting groups attacking the Labor candidate for East Hills, Mr Cameron Murphy;

(c) electoral treating including the provision of a "donation" to a local religious school of 1,500 bottles of water promoting the member for East Hills, Mr Glenn Brookes, to be sold at the school fete, which the school organisation then asked other candidates to match and also through the provision of water bottles to commercial premises, that were provided at no cost to those premises, but which were then sold for profit and that Mr Brookes, by his own admission, stated that he had distributed 15,000 bottles at his own expense at a cost of $4,500;

(d) the invoicing of the Australian Multicultural Christian Society, a charity run by convicted money launderer, Mr Carl Trad, for payment of water bottles used for campaigning purposes;

(e) the midnight appearance of a Glenn Brookes/Mike Baird Liberal Party billboard on Milperra Road, Revesby that lacked development application approval from Bankstown Council and for which Bankstown Council was required to issue a notice to remove;

(f) the extensive use of vehicles and resources from the company "Sydney Signs" which remain undeclared as an election donation, including the sign writing and advertising of an entire bus; and

(g) the use of vehicles from the company "Sydney Signs", driven by Mr Glenn Brookes, MP's electorate officer, Mr Jim Daniel, for the illegal and unauthorised removal of the Labor candidates' A-frames from local shopping precincts.

(2) That this House notes that the Labor candidate, Mr Cameron Murphy, was the victim of a sustained attack that included the placement of stickers with defamatory and derogatory statements on campaign corflutes placed in local residents properties and that this illegal activity required the removal of all Labor corflutes in the East Hills electorate.

(3) That this House condemns Mr Brookes for his actions and those of his campaign team during the 2015 New South Wales State Election that have brought the electoral process into disrepute.

(4) That this House:

(a) calls on the Premier of New South Wales to ascertain whether these matters have been investigated by the New South Wales Electoral Commission, when they were investigated and whether the Electoral Commission has adequate resources to stop breaches of the Parliamentary Electorates and Election Act 1912 during the election process; and

(b) condemns the Premier of New South Wales for his failure to act on breaches of the Parliamentary Electorates and Election Act 1912 by Mr Brookes when they were reported in the media.

I speak to the substantive motion regarding the disgraceful conduct of the member for East Hills, Glenn Brookes, during the 2015 election campaign. I have worked on every local, State and Federal election since the Whitlam Government. Never in my time of working on elections have I seen such a level of abuse and disregard for the electoral laws that govern elections in this State. Glenn Brookes quite frankly should not be a member of this, the oldest Parliament in Australia.

As members of this Chamber will be aware, a standard motion is required if you intend to impugn the actions of members of this or the other House, and accordingly I have acted this way. In this State one would have thought that both the major political parties would adhere to the concept of free and fair elections. Free and fair elections are a fundamental tenet of any democracy. Furthermore, members of the New South Wales Parliament are required to abide by the members' code of conduct. In particular, members of Parliament are required to acknowledge their responsibility to maintain the public trust placed in them by performing their duties with honesty and integrity, respecting the law and the institution of Parliament, and using their influence to advance the common good of the people of New South Wales. Members of this Parliament should act with integrity and adhere to moral and ethical principles. This is what the member for East Hills has not done. In the other Chamber when discussing legislation the Premier stated:

Last night this House and the upper House put forward reforms that provide a benchmark in terms of tougher penalties, more transparency and less influence from donations. That is what we are committed to and delivering on and we will continue to do so while we clean up politics in this State.

It is pretty obvious in this case the Premier has squibbed it. The election campaign in East Hills was awash with breaches of the Electoral Act, with a complete disregard for any of the standards that members of this Parliament should meet. The Deputy Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] wrote to me during the election campaign regarding the member for East Hills, Glenn Brookes, and stated:

The Commission considers the matter involves possible breaches of two pieces of legislation which are administered by the NSW Electoral Commission.

Even before we got within cooee of election day ICAC was identifying breaches of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act. Even before we got to the worst offences by the member for East Hills these breaches were being reported in the media. Yet despite the claims by the Premier that he was going to clean up politics, he squibbed it.

Let us go through the motion. There is the distribution throughout the polling booths in the electorate of an unauthorised, illegal leaflet attacking the Labor candidate, Cameron Murphy, by Mr Brookes' electoral staffer, Jim Daniel, who is also a Liberal councillor on Bankstown council. As I noted previously, on 17 March 2015 a pamphlet entitled "Stranger Danger" was widely distributed around East Hills. This pamphlet was not authorised and no printer is recorded as required by the Act. The pamphlet purported to quote from the Labor candidate, Cameron Murphy. It was defamatory, inaccurate, misleading, untrue and clearly designed to influence voters and to attack the Labor candidate.

Copies of the "Stranger Danger" pamphlet were distributed also on polling day in contravention of the Act. It is not just dirty tricks; it is a blatant breach of the law. Jim Daniel, who is a Bankstown Liberal councillor and a member of Glenn Brookes' staff, was caught red-handed handing out these flyers, yet no action has been taken by the Liberal Premier of New South Wales regarding Jim Daniel's continued membership of the Liberal Party. Whilst the Labor Party tosses them out for bringing the party into disrepute it would appear that you can get caught red-handed in the Liberal Party for breaking the law and the Premier will stand mutely by.

This is the same Jim Daniel who travelled around the electorate stealing A-frames in a vehicle owned by Glenn Brookes' company, Sydney Signs. If members opposite want to check the fact they can go to the video to check it out; yet they sit mutely on the other side, as does their Premier, in the face of the abuse of the electoral system by this person, an elected representative of the Liberal Party. The fact that Mr Brookes has used his company resources to run his election campaign seems to have escaped those opposite. It is a clear breach of the Act. Indeed, further in the motion I note that the Labor candidate, Mr Cameron Murphy, was a victim of a sustained attack that included the placement of stickers with defamatory, derogatory statements on campaign corflutes that caused the removal of all Labor corflutes in East Hills.

It will come as no surprise that these stickers were produced on the same material that is used to print large outdoor display signs. Yes, that is right members: the same material as is used by Mr Brookes in his business, Sydney Signs. Indeed, it is a specialist machine, of which there are very few in the State. This is a machine without which Mr Brookes would not be able to run his company. It would be a machine sitting metres away from where his bus was parked, metres away from where his water bottles were stored, on the grounds of his company. I do not need to worry about imputation, blind Freddy can see that there are very few places where these stickers could have been produced and number one on the suspect list is Mr Brookes and the equipment owned by his company.

That would be the same place where, mysteriously, a bus appeared festooned with Glenn Brookes signage. On 8 February I provided the Electoral Commission with a photo of the bus prior to any signage being added. I am sure that the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight will assure the House that this bus is not owned by Glenn Brookes' company, as this would be a clear breach of the Act. This bus then appeared on the campaign trail adorned with signage, again of the type that would be produced by his company. Mr Brookes' electoral expenditure return, if we ever get to see one from this secretive and closeted Coalition Government, will make fine reading. In contrast, Labor candidates have had their expenditure disclosures on the website since March and have provided follow-up disclosure for all to see, not hidden as those on the other side seem to do.

I turn to some of Mr Brookes' friends who were helping him out during the election campaign. I was surprised to receive numerous complaints about the overnight building of a billboard at a property on Milperra Road. This billboard was festooned with images of Mike Baird and his chosen cohort, Glenn Brookes. The property on which this illegal fixture was erected was owned by a company called Queen Street Racing. Members of this House may think that name sounds familiar. Yes, Queen Street Racing is the company whose phone number appeared at the bottom of the notice to close a road in Auburn and to tow away any cars in the road at the time of the wedding of the deputy mayor, Salim Mehajer. That Queen Street Racing has no regard for the law is becoming as clear as Glenn Brookes' breaches of the electoral law. This billboard did not appear on its Pat Malone; it was built and immediately contained the Liberal Party billboard produced by the Liberal Party.

Members on the opposite side of the Chamber can enlighten me as to their parties' relationship with Queen Street Racing, as I would be interested in hearing any explanation. I would like to know how they happened to know an illegal billboard was being erected. I would be interested to see how much Queen Street Racing was paid for that illegal billboard. Queen Street Racing was issued with a notice to remove the illegal billboard, which it ignored. Surprisingly, the day after I made an access-to-information application to Bankstown City Council, the billboard was removed—what a coincidence.

[Deputy-President (The Hon. Paul Green) left the chair at 1.01 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 2.30 p.m. for questions.

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______

NORTHCONNEX AND HEAVY VEHICLES

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Given the Government's decision to require all trucks to use the NorthConnex, what will be the penalty be for trucks "rat running" on local roads to avoid the $20 toll?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the Leader for the Opposition for his question. I congratulate him on his diligence. This has only been out in the community for two or three years. Suddenly those opposite have discovered that there is a feeling that trucks should use NorthConnex. The Leader of the Opposition is not technically correct. The member is very diligent, but I am sure he did not write this question. Not unusually, the information he has been given is incorrect. Indeed, a member should always check a question before asking it. All trucks will not be forced to use NorthConnex because local deliveries will have to be made in that area.

The Hon. Walt Secord: You have given them a loophole.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes. I have given them a loophole, but there is a catch.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Define a truck?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The favourite wine and beer merchants of the member making all the noise will have to provedore local groceries and get fuel to the service stations—in fact, fuel tankers cannot use the tunnel. Vehicles that cart fuel, gas, et cetera will be allowed to use the other roads. We will avoid the situation of "rat runs" and inappropriate use because vehicles that come off the highway and then go back on will be timed.

ST MARTHA'S CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

The Hon. LOU AMATO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of the pedestrian crossing upgrade at St Martha's Catholic Primary School, Strathfield?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: What a great question. This is an important issue for the local community. I noticed that everyone wanted to ask this question. I am disappointed there was only one, but we will find others in that area. At the election I pledged to upgrade the pedestrian crossing on Churchill Avenue for St Martha's Primary School. I am pleased to inform the House that we are getting on with the job of delivering this important road safety project. Indeed, it should come as no surprise that we have been working hard to deliver this project. Nothing is more important than the safety of our most vulnerable and inexperienced road users—our children. However, I was gravely disappointed to hear suggestions in the local press, and from the local Labor member, that we had broken our promise to parents and students of that school.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Outrageous.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes, I was shocked too. I even went to check if it was true. I could not believe that a local Labor member would tell a mistruth; on checking, I found that was simply not the case. It is always a shame to see local political operatives misleading the community on projects like this. Roads and Maritime Services representatives have met several times with the Strathfield municipal council to discuss this matter. I am advised that a design has been prepared and approved by the local traffic committee. In addition, I am informed that Roads and Maritime Services has written to the council confirming the funding for this important project. Indeed, Roads and Maritime is liaising with council about delivery of this project. I am also pleased to inform the House that the cost estimate for this high-visibility children's crossing has been revised to $77,000—which is cheaper than we thought. This will free up the remaining committed funding for other vital road safety projects.

I acknowledge the continuing community concern for the safety of the children attending St Martha's Primary School not only when they are going to and from school but also when they cross Churchill Avenue to access the playground on the other side of the road. I assure the local community that we are getting on with the job of delivering on our commitments. This is just one project in the $100 million congestion and safety program to be delivered over the next four years. Roads and Maritime Services have been working to develop a statewide package of works to deliver these projects. But that is not all we are doing. In the most recent budget we announced $307 million to improve road safety. This funding marks the biggest road safety investment in this State's history. This includes $2 million to kick-start delivery of our promise to boost safety around schools, including improved infrastructure like zebra crossings, and rolling out additional flashing lights to schools with multiple busy entrances. We said we would get flashing lights to every school in New South Wales; we are on track to do that by the end of the year. That is what good government is about—delivering on promises made. Do not judge us by your standards.

WILLIAMTOWN LAND CONTAMINATION

The Hon. WALT SECORD: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Given that the State Government has warned families not to consume eggs, fish and water due to water contamination at the Williamtown Royal Australian Air Force base, what is his advice to beef cattle and milk producers in the area? Has the Minister investigated how widespread the chemical contamination impact on food production has been?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank the member for his question. As I indicated in answer to a similar question earlier this week, it is best that we allow staff to gather as much information on the ground as possible. That will allow us to understand the context and confirm any information that needs to be relied upon to continue the work our agencies are doing in the multi-agency response being led by the Environment Protection Authority [EPA]. As I mentioned yesterday, an expert panel is being put together. The terms of reference of that panel are being finalised. The panel will oversee the necessary studies and investigations undertaken by the Department of Defence and its contractors; it will oversee remediation activities related to Williamtown Royal Australian Air Force base; and it will provide advice to government agencies as to decisions regarding access to bore water, closure of fisheries and oyster harvesting.

The Environment Protection Authority, on behalf of the New South Wales agencies, has written to the Department of Defence summarising issues raised and outlining the steps required to be taken by the department. These actions include, in broad terms: the spatial extent of contamination, human health risk assessment, environmental risk assessment, limiting further environmental pollution, and appropriate community consultation.

I am advised the Department of Defence is organising a public meeting, which is likely to be held next week. I am also advised that the Department of Primary Industries and the NSW Food Authority have commenced sampling of fish and oysters. Groundwater monitoring is currently being organised by the EPA and DPI Water. More extensive groundwater monitoring will be undertaken by the Department of Defence. As I have said, I am advised that the Department of Defence is organising a public meeting. Hopefully the relevant representatives of the Department of Primary Industries will get a spot in that public meeting to update the public on any information that is available. Again, as I said yesterday and the day before, there is a multi-agency response. The information that I have just presented updates the House on where they believe the next steps are. We will then see what those steps and the communication between that response and the Department of Defence brings.

The Hon. WALT SECORD: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer in regard to the expert panel? Will the Minister detail its membership, its reporting timetable and whether its report will be made public?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I provided information on the make-up of that panel in my response yesterday. As I indicated yesterday, it will be led by Professor Mary O'Kane, the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer. The panel will include toxicologists, a hydrologist, a science expert in lab protocols and a representative from EPA contaminated sites.

CHILD PROTECTION WEEK

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, representing the Premier. Given that it is Child Protection Week and tomorrow is White Balloon Day, will he outline the initiatives the Government has taken to protect the kids of New South Wales and make New South Wales the safest place in Australia to raise a child?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his question and acknowledge the importance of Child Protection Week and White Balloon Day. I do not think anything concerns members of this House or the wider community more than our young and most vulnerable people being put at risk. I apologise that I do not have the details that the member has asked for at hand, but they are important and I will certainly make sure that we get a detailed answer as soon as possible.

ROYAL REHAB WALL OF FAME

The Hon. BRONNIE TAYLOR: My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Will the Minister outline the purpose of the Wall of Fame and how the New South Wales Government supports this initiative and other similar initiatives for people with a brain injury?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the member for her question. Since 2003 the Royal Rehabilitation Centre in Sydney, known as Royal Rehab, has hosted the annual Wall of Fame celebration during Brain Injury Awareness Week. Royal Rehab is a highly specialised rehabilitation facility located within the Northern Sydney Area Health Service. The Wall of Fame is one of the most significant events of Brain Injury Awareness Week. It is an opportunity for people to share with a number of participants their stories about the journey they have taken, along with their family, partners and friends, following a traumatic brain injury. Each year Royal Rehab selects a number of former clients to share their stories and achievements of rehabilitation and recovery. Each participant is presented with a framed copy of their story, which is added to the Wall of Fame within the centre's brain injury unit. The stories provide hope and inspiration to current and future clients recovering from acquired brain injuries and their families. There are now more than 80 stories on the Wall of Fame.

This year I was again privileged to be part of the Wall of Fame ceremony with Peter Overton from channel 9 and to hear the stories firsthand. I take this opportunity to congratulate this year's participants: Ms Marcia Bourke, Mr Kevin Luu, Mr Liam Knight, Ms Naomi Meyer and Mr Adam Minnett. Those on the wall have experienced the life-altering effects of acquiring a brain injury and have undergone extensive rehabilitation with the determination to get their life back on track, as much as possible. It was a long road that these participants walked. It is wonderful that they are willing to share their stories to inspire other people who find themselves in a similar situation.

The New South Wales Government recognises the importance of providing support for people who have a brain injury. In 2014-15 Ageing, Disability and Home Care [ADHC] will provide around $14.5 million to a range of services that target people with an acquired brain injury. This includes in-home support services, case management, specialised assessment, therapies, day programs, behaviour support, social support, community and recreation services. Approximately 2,500 people accessing Ageing, Disability and Home Care funded services were reported as having an acquired brain injury. Collaboration across government is required to develop suitable service models and increase awareness, expertise and service capacity across Disability, Health and Community Services.

Both NSW Health and ADHC have responsibilities for addressing the needs of people who have an acquired brain injury. ADHC has developed a number of information and capacity-building initiatives to improve support responses and enable people with a brain injury to get on with their lives, including a web-based training tool available for free on the Ageing, Disability and Home Care website and development of a web-based directory service in New South Wales, which includes specialised assessment and intervention options. I admire the resilience of the Wall of Fame nominees and their determination to live life on their terms—their determination to never give up, their determination to succeed, their determination to keep improving their lives and their determination to ensure that their friends and family are not burdened by their injury. They truly are inspirational. I also applaud the tireless efforts of Royal Rehab to provide clients with the opportunity to discover their real potential. I applaud them for continuing their great work.

SENIORS GAS AND ELECTRICITY CHARGES

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. Was a tender process undertaken to choose AGL as the gas and electricity supplier to be promoted to Seniors Card holders in New South Wales? If not, will the Minister please outline the steps that were taken to ensure that New South Wales seniors obtain the best possible discount? If so, please supply the number of tenderers and the criteria used to choose between them.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the member for his question. There is no tender process. Any business such as AGL can approach the Seniors Card team at Family and Community Services [FACS]. Businesses that offer a genuine discount to seniors can join the program—any business. We now have more than 4,000 business outlets for more than 1.4 million Seniors Card holders—that is 4,000 businesses that approached Seniors Card to offer discounts. We are also continuing to work to increase the number of these business outlets. That is why the budget allocated $2 million over four years, which delivered yet another election commitment of the Baird Government.

We went to the election stating that we would increase the number of businesses, and we budgeted $2 million to do so. I strongly encourage other energy providers and all New South Wales businesses to get involved in the program to provide discounts to seniors. I make this point clear: AGL did not obtain an exclusive discount deal with the Government for seniors. Any business can apply to participate in the program and I encourage all businesses to do so. This would be a wonderful State if every business offered Seniors Card holders a discount. That is what we are working towards. I encourage all members to tell businesses to contact the Seniors Card office at the Department of Family and Community Services.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister tell the House how many other energy and gas suppliers approached the department and on what basis will the department accept or reject an offer?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I will answer the second part of the supplementary question first. Any business can approach the Department of Family and Community Services, but the Seniors Card office has a clear policy that any business that provides a discount must comply with the current laws, including Fair Trading laws. There cannot be any misleading or deceiving conduct. Any energy retailer can apply. I have indicated that 4,000 outlets currently offer discounts. I am not aware when each business approaches the Seniors Card office. That is an operational matter because the office maintains the Seniors Card list and the directory. I will take the first part of the question on notice and ascertain whether any other energy retailer has in fact approached the Seniors Card office. I will respond when I have an answer.

WILLIAMTOWN LAND CONTAMINATION

The Hon. COURTNEY HOUSSOS: My question is directed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism, representing the Minister for Health. What advice is offered to breastfeeding mothers in the Williamtown Royal Australian Air Force water contamination area if they have consumed locally produced eggs, fish and water recently?

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Take it on notice.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the member for her question. I note the interjection of the Hon. Lynda Voltz and I will take the question on notice. I will refer it to the Minister for Health and provide a response.

PORT MACQUARIE PLAZA CAR PARK

The Hon. BEN FRANKLIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and the Minister for Lands and Water. Will the Minister update the House on the expression of interest [EOI] process relating to the Port Macquarie Plaza car park?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank the member for his question and welcome the opportunity to update the House on the expression of interest for the sale of the Port Macquarie Plaza car park. This afternoon I was advised that Woolworths has notified the Department of Primary Industries that it has withdrawn its interest to purchase the Port Macquarie Plaza car park. As a result, the EOI process has concluded without a sale to a preferred purchaser. I am advised by my department that Woolworths and Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, which was the only other party to lodge an expression of interest, have been informed that the EOI process has now concluded. This has been a lengthy process and it is appropriate for me to make some comments on a number of issues that have been raised.

While the Opposition preferred to use its time to play politics with this issue and to perform a stunt in the House this morning, the Department of Primary Industries has been working hard in the best interests of the Port Macquarie community. At every turn the EOI process was open and transparent, with all interested parties being able to respond. Responses to the EOI were assessed in accordance with the terms and criteria of the EOI and the panel assessing the applications was overseen by an independent probity adviser. Following that process, Woolworths was assessed as the preferred purchaser in accordance with the terms of the EOI for the sale of the site. The Lands division of the Department of Primary Industries entered into direct negotiations with Woolworths to negotiate terms for the purchase of the site. Those negotiations remained confidential while they were underway, as is normal business practice, and were subject to the probity plan. The Government said all along that any sale of the land was not guaranteed.

The Plaza car park site forms part of the Hastings Regional Crown Reserve and the proposed sale was consistent with the plan of management for this reserve. The plan of management was publically exhibited three times and adopted after consultation with the Foreshore Land Advisory Group, which includes Port Macquarie-Hastings Council and the chamber of commerce. Following discussions on this matter with the member for Port Macquarie, the Hon. Leslie Williams, and members of the community, I announced last week that any sale of the Plaza car park site must protect the existing parking places. The parking places will be protected through a public positive covenant, which means that any owner of the Plaza car park site will be bound to protect the existing car parks in any future development of the site.

Despite assertions to the contrary, all proper procedures have been followed in the EOI process. The future capability of the Plaza car park had already been determined by the various planning instruments in place over the site. These were the plan of management I mentioned as well as council's local environmental plan and development control plan. Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, as trust manager for the reserve, has been consulted extensively throughout 2012 and 2013 by the department and Woolworths about the Woolworths proposal. The council remains the reserve trust manager for Short Street Reserve, which includes the Plaza car park. The council continues to be responsible for the care, control and management of the reserve. The plan of management remains in place and the Government will continue to consult with council and other stakeholders on its implementation.

ABORTION

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing, representing the Minister for Health. Preterm Foundation, Sydney's oldest abortion clinic, closed its doors recently. Is this indicative of a decline in the number of abortions? How many clinics are currently licensed by the New South Wales Department of Health to perform abortions? Will the Minister provide the statistics on the number of abortions conducted in New South Wales in 2014? How can abortions be safe, legal and rare when they always result in the death of an unborn child?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the member for his question. I note that he is seeking a number of specific answers. I will refer the question to the Minister for Health for a response.

WILLIAMTOWN LAND CONTAMINATION

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Minister for Ageing, representing the Minister for Environment. In light of the contamination of the Royal Australian Air Force Williamtown site, when was the Environment Protection Authority first aware of possible contamination to the site and when did it inform other State government departments and agencies?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the honourable member for his question. I will refer the question to the Minister for the Environment for a response.

CLASSIC CARS REGISTRATION

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight. Will the Minister update the House on the new conditional registration scheme trial for club vehicles?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his question. I know he has an interest in this area. Members may have seen a picture of me in the Sydney Morning Herald last week in which I am standing rather awkwardly beside a 1970 yellow and black Ford Mustang with a Ford Fairlane Coupe beside it. I was wishing that I was not just standing there but having a ride in these great classic cars.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: I'd love to own one.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I would love to own one as well, but I do not get paid as much as Labor members. I am pleased that great classics such as these will soon be seen travelling more often along our roads under a new conditional registration scheme trial for Roads and Maritime Services [RMS] recognised club vehicles. This is a two-year log book-based trial starting on 1 October where enthusiasts will be able to register with a club so they can take their classic motorcycle or car out on the road for up to 60 days outside of club meetings. The Government recognised that owners of conditionally registered vehicles had limited use, restricting these mechanical pieces of art and their owners from showing off their classic automobiles on our roads.

The current historic conditional registration scheme remains unchanged. There are requirements that must be met under this trial. The vehicles must be under 3.5 tonnes, at least 30 years old, meet the safety requirements of full registration or the current historic vehicle scheme, and be affiliated to a participating RMS recognised motoring club. While the initial first part of the conditional registration scheme relates to historic vehicles, we are working through a process to finalise a similar trial for modified vehicles that are currently fully registered and where their owners are members of an RMS recognised club.

We are incorporating safe and sensible additions into the trial in consultation with the community and stakeholders so that owners and the wider community can revel in the unique beauty of these vehicles more often. This trial is not only about showing off the State's best looking classic vehicles but also providing wider benefits to the State economy, bringing New South Wales into line with several other States and boosting opportunities in the automotive after-market industry, which contributes $11 billion to the Australian economy and employs more than 30,000 people.

To opt into the scheme, a suitable vehicle owner needs to be a member of one of the several hundred New South Wales enthusiast clubs—I am sure they are enthusiastic—or visit the RMS website. I encourage anyone who has a classic car and has been eager to take it out on the road and have a drive to register for this scheme. Some of these great vehicles are not designed to sit in sheds; they are designed to be enjoyed. I am sure members are aware that these vehicles enjoy a lower registration cost because the owners care for them and do not go out and hoon in them. These owners are great family members and great contributors to our community.

BEEKEEPING

The Hon. MARK PEARSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Modern commercial honey production requires bees to be continuously transported around the country to pollinate our crops and provide honey. Studies around the world have shown that bees naturally forage within only a one- to three-kilometre range and when required to constantly adjust to new environments they exhibit physical stress as they are forced to adapt to new micro-climates, landscapes and floral resources. Is the Minister aware of any investigations or research conducted by his department or elsewhere into the effect of stress on honey bees as a result of these practices? This is an important matter.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: The question contained several components so I will answer them in reverse. I will start with the member's statement that this is an important matter. I can only take from that statement that the member thinks that I would consider that beekeeping, the condition of the bees and our apiarists in New South Wales are not important matters. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I may have said in the House before, when I was at university studying for my horticultural science degree I failed one subject and I had to pick up six more credit points.

My third year apiculture course did not have an exam, which is probably why I chose it, and it was the best decision. It was a practical subject with a large theory component, and part of that component included the behaviour and life cycle of bees. It is fascinating to study the way bees communicate in the hive, in the colony. One thing I know is that from time to time the bees in a colony decide that it is necessary to find a new location—perhaps the old queen is exhausted and they decide to select a new queen.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: They do it nicely. They don't pass motions.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: They do it nicely. A new queen is selected, and she may decide to take part of the hive with her. The bees will swarm when the queen sends them out to find a new location.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: The bees behave.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I would appreciate it if Government backbenchers allowed the Minister to answer in silence.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: The queen will send out the bees to find a new home for the colony, and they will come back and do a little figure eight dance. Bees communicate to each other how good the new location is by how vigorously they dance. For example, the Hon. Duncan Gay might go out and come back, and the new location is not bad so he does a slightly subdued dance. Then the Hon. John Ajaka goes out and comes back, and does a vigorous dance saying, "Let's go this way." The bees will take in what the Hon. John Ajaka says and they will head off to the new site. Bees naturally adapt to movement.

However, the Hon. Mark Pearson asked me whether I am aware of any studies about apiarists moving their colonies. I declare to the House that beekeeping is something I am introducing at my house to my son. It is a great pastime to get involved in with kids. People must ensure that their beehives are registered with the Department of Primary Industries. It is fantastic to be involved in beekeeping. In answer to the question, I am not aware of any studies. But I am a great fan of bees and beekeeping, and we should all celebrate that.

The Hon. MARK PEARSON: I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to ensure that the investigation includes the fact that when bees become stressed they become a serious risk to agriculture and cross-pollination. Will the Minister elucidate as to whether that is an eight swing dance or an eighty-eight swing dance?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I think the first part of the supplementary question was really a statement. As to the second part about the bee dance, it depends on how good the new site is.

WILLIAMTOWN LAND CONTAMINATION

The Hon. MICK VEITCH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Is the Minister satisfied with the timing of the Environment Protection Authority's notification to his department of the contamination at the Williamtown RAAF site? Is he confident that delays in reporting the contaminated site have not led to contaminated seafood being placed on the market?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank the honourable member for his question. As I have indicated already, the department is currently looking at the information that is available. It is important that as a government we regularly assess the nature of our response to these types of issues. I understand that the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Mark Speakman, will be consulting with the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] to consider whether there is scope for improved management of low-risk contamination matters with cross-jurisdictional implications. It is quite early in the piece. We need to understand what the events are. That is why my answer to the Hon. Walt Secord earlier clearly outlined the terms of reference of that scientific committee. Part of that is to look at the extent of the issue that we may be facing.

The Minister will speak to the EPA about any lessons that we learn as a result of that information. I will continue to speak to the Department of Primary Industries and Hunter Water. If there is anything else we can learn as a result, we will act on that. As I have said on numerous occasions, let us allow the officers on the ground to gather the information to see what we are dealing with and inform the public of what they are dealing with. That is part of the planned public meetings that I spoke about earlier in question time. Once we get the appropriate response on the ground as to what we are facing and we have the results, we will be able to look at what lessons can be learnt.

MULTICULTURAL HEALTH SERVICES

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism. How is the Government providing health information in a culturally and linguistically appropriate way to the residents of New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the honourable member for his question. The New South Wales Government is absolutely committed to providing health information in a culturally and linguistically appropriate way, and to each and every person living in New South Wales. This week I was pleased to join the Minister for Health, the Hon. Jillian Skinner, to launch this year's Multicultural Health Week with its theme, Rights and Responsibilities—Get Involved in Your Health Care. One of the key priorities of the New South Wales Government is to improve the clinical governance, safety and quality of health services delivered to all communities. This year the aim is to place a spotlight on the importance of culturally and linguistically diverse people's awareness of their own health care. People from all communities have the right to be respected and included in decisions about their health care. Open and respectful communication is one of the most important responsibilities in a healthcare relationship and is borne by both patients and health professionals.

The New South Wales Government continues to take a proactive approach across the State to improve interpreter services and raise awareness of its importance among both doctors and patients. The Government aims to appropriately educate new arrival communities about the New South Wales health system and their rights and responsibilities in regards to it. To highlight one recent initiative, Northern Sydney Local Health District's Multicultural Health Service worked with the Northern Sydney TAFE on a Tibetan refugee mentoring program. The program increased access to health information and health services and enhanced social support and connectedness between the Tibetans and local community members. During the program 15 community volunteers attended a comprehensive training program before being linked with a Tibetan mentee. They met once a week for at least six months and provided friendship, support and assistance.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the first time. I call the Hon. Lynda Voltz to order for the first time.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Comments from the Tibetan mentees included:

I feel like I have a family. Because, here, when I first come here I don't know anybody. No friend, no relatives ... I feel like I am with my family.

Another quote:

She is very happy to help me in any way … Recently I had some problem with my teeth and she took me to the local hospital and they did an x-ray.

These examples may be simple to those opposite, but for people from a cultural and linguistically diverse background who have difficulty in communicating these are vital matters and these assistants help them enormously. As part of the Multicultural Health Week the Minister for Health launched the Health Care Interpreter Service DVD. This DVD will be free for all services in New South Wales. The video is an important way to educate health workers and consumers about how the Health Care Interpreter Service works and just how valuable it is for communities. NSW Health provides over half a million interpreting occasions of service each year in approximately 120 languages, mostly face to face but also by telephone.

The work we do spreading these important messages does not stop here. Outstanding new multilingual resources such as postcards and posters, and even radio and print advertisements, have been produced to promote the message of the week encouraging all community members to be actively involved in their health care. Each of these resources is remarkable for our health service and State. Let us all work together to raise the awareness of our rights and responsibilities and support multicultural patients to understand and exercise their rights so that they have greater responsibility in their health care. If we achieve this we will have helped improve the health of multicultural communities across New South Wales.

WORKERS COMPENSATION PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR OPERATIONS

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, representing the Minister for Finance, Services and Property. Does the Government approve of private investigators paid for by New South Wales workers' compensation insurers collecting images and information from injured workers' Facebook pages where those pages have a security setting set to exclude access to anyone but the injured workers' Facebook friends? And they do it.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank Mr David Shoebridge for his question. As it is a question of detail, I will take it on notice and refer it to the Minister for Finance, Services and Property for a detailed response.

CATARACT REMOVAL WAITING LIST

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Ageing, representing the Minister for Health. What is the Minister's advice to older Australians who face up to a four-year wait for cataract removal in New South Wales when compared to a national average of 91 days, 46 days in Canada and 40 days in Holland?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the honourable member for his question. I think it is important to note that when one looks at the Bureau of Health's publication Healthcare in Focus 2014 one sees that a number of matters are relevant to what has been raised in the question. The report takes a broad look at more than 120 different measures of performance in our complex health system. It finds that on the international stage New South Wales performs well, with some areas of great improvement. Almost 97 per cent of New South Wales patients received their elective surgery within clinically recommended time frames. It is interesting that the Labor Party wants to highlight certain elective surgery categories, claiming things are worse for New South Wales residents. I am happy to compare what it was like during Labor's watch in government for those surgeries and our watch in government for those surgeries.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: Mr President, the Minister knows full well that the question was specifically about cataract surgeries. He has not come close to the question; in fact, he is diverging off at a tangent. I ask you to direct the Minister back to the leave of the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: If I had been allowed to complete my answer the honourable member would know the facts, but I will answer in a different way so he is certain. I will compare cataract surgeries under the Labor Government with cataract surgeries under this Government. Between April and June 2010, under the Labor Government, cataract surgeries were at 89 per cent. Under this Government, between April and June 2015, cataract surgeries are at 98 per cent. I am sure the Labor Government said it was doing a wonderful job, although cataract surgeries were at 89 per cent. I am sure those opposite did not complain about their Government's 89 per cent. Under this Government cataract surgeries are at 98 per cent.

The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order: Mr President, the Minister is debating the question and there are 73,000 people on the waiting list.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Let us look at total hip replacements. Under the Labor Government, from April to June—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: A reference to hip surgery has nothing to do with my question about advice to elderly people who have to wait up to four years for cataract surgery in New South Wales.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Greg Donnelly knows that he should not use points of order as an opportunity for debate. The Minister has the call to provide a relevant answer.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Total hip replacements for April to June 2010, under the Labor Government, were at 75 per cent.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The question was specifically about the number of cataract surgeries. The Minister has strayed way away from the cataract surgeries. I ask you to bring him back to the leave of the question, Mr President.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: To the point of order: The question related to surgery for seniors and older people. I would submit that any surgery is, at the very least, generally relevant to the question.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: The question was specifically about a four-year wait for cataract removal in New South Wales compared to the national average in Canada and Holland. The Minister's statements in regard to the points of order show that he is not being relevant. The question was specifically about cataract removal.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister is moving beyond what is generally relevant. If he can demonstrate the nexus, he may continue along the same lines.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Medical professionals agree that New South Wales is performing well by international standards. These professionals include Dr John Quinn from the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, who said:

Cataract surgery and joint replacements are not life threatening or life shortening, and therefore they're seen to be lower priorities—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: I did not ask about what someone said; I asked about the Government's position—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Greg Donnelly to order for the first time. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I will start Dr Quinn's quote from the beginning so as to give the whole quote:

Cataract surgery and joint replacements are not life threatening or life shortening, and therefore they're seen to be lower priorities … if 97% of patients are being done on time, that's a wonderful thing.

I repeat: cataract surgeries under this Government, 98 per cent; under the former Labor Government, 89 per cent. Total hip replacements under this Government are at 97 per cent; under the former Labor Government, 75 per cent. Those opposite have the audacity to ask this question. Shame on them. They should have done more.

INVASIVE SPECIES PLAN

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands and Water. Could the Minister update the House on how the New South Wales Government is addressing invasive species, one of the greatest threats to biodiversity and primary production in New South Wales?

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank the honourable member for his question. As he indicated, invasive species are one of the greatest threats to biodiversity and primary production in New South Wales. In fact, a recent report has shown the cost of invasive species nationally to be more than $5 billion each year. That is why the New South Wales Government has been working hand in hand with industry and key stakeholders to develop the Draft NSW Invasive Species Plan 2015-2022. This draft plan provides actions to prevent and effectively manage the introduction and spread of invasive species including weeds, vertebrate and invertebrate animal pests, and freshwater and marine aquatic pests. New South Wales is among the best in the world when it comes to management of invasive species—something this Government is continuing to improve. Today I am pleased to inform the House that the Draft NSW Invasive Species Plan 2015-2022 is open for public consultation.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is too much noise on the Government backbench.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: We want landholders and the community to provide us with their valuable feedback on the new plan. This is about ensuring we have correctly identified priorities and to help guide future investment in invasive species management. Invasive species affect us all—government, industry, landholders and the community. This plan aims to help the State's farmers boost profitability and reduce the impacts of weeds and pests on their bottom line. It will benefit the people of New South Wales by providing a whole-of-government approach to managing invasive species in this State, as well as further clarifying roles and responsibilities for invasive species management in New South Wales. Importantly, this draft plan has been developed by a working committee with expertise in all facets of invasive species management including the Department of Primary Industries, Local Land Services, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, NSW Farmers, the Weeds Officers Association, Local Government NSW and the Noxious Weeds Advisory Committee.

Following the consultation process on the draft plan, all comments received will be reviewed and considered for incorporation into the final plan. Public consultation on the draft plan closes on 2 October 2015, and I would encourage people to visit the Department of Primary Industries website for more information on this important plan. This plan will become yet another tool to assist us to control and manage the effects of invasive species—another tool in our ever-expanding toolbox. Yesterday I spoke of the independent review of pest animal management to be conducted by the Natural Resources Commission, a commitment we made prior to the election and we have now delivered. As a result of a $15 million contribution from this Government, Landcare NSW is in a better position to play the important role it plays in improving our landscapes, including reclaiming them from invasive species and restoring natural habitats. This was another election commitment that we have already delivered on and another that has been widely acclaimed in industry and community circles.

There is a bit of a theme here. Of course, as we all know, yesterday saw the passage of the landmark New South Wales Biosecurity Bill 2015 through the other place, a bill that reinforces the principle that biosecurity is everyone's responsibility. This bill is another step in improving and modernising the management of invasive species in New South Wales and another election commitment ticked off by the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government. This Government is determined to continue to do all it can to assist and protect our $12 billion primary industries sector and our precious environment.

BYLONG COAL PROJECT

Mr JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question without notice is to the Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism, representing the Minister for Planning. Will the Minister assure the people of Bylong that the environmental impact statement for KEPCO's Bylong coal project will not go on public exhibition until the investigation by the New South Wales Department of Trade and Investment into allegations of KEPCO having provided false and misleading information in its recent exploration application is concluded and any necessary corrective action has been taken?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am advised that it would be inappropriate for the Minister for Planning to comment on an ongoing investigation by another agency. Any questions in relation to the investigation should be directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. However, with respect to the planning system, I am advised that the proponent for the Bylong coal project is still preparing its environmental impact statement [EIS]. I am further advised when the proponent has finalised its EIS, it will be exhibited, provided there is no legal impediment for doing so. An EIS only outlines the proposed use by a proponent of an area of land and the likely environmental, social and economic impacts of that use. When this information is prepared, I am advised that this Government believes that the community should be given access to it. This is why EISs are exhibited. This is why everybody has the opportunity to make a submission on the environmental impact statement.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I indicate that the time for questions is over for the week. If members have further questions, they can put them on notice. We look forward to taking them on notice.

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

The House continued to sit.

NORTHCONNEX AND HEAVY VEHICLES

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Earlier in question time today the Hon. Adam Searle asked me about fines or penalties associated with trucks running off route, particularly in relation to trucks diverting off NorthConnex onto adjacent residential streets. Truck drivers who run off route are instantly issued with a $630 penalty notice. Furthermore, if Roads and Maritime Services decides to take a matter to court, for instance, and a truck driver continues to run off route, then a fine of up to $6,000 for every individual offence can apply. That is a big financial risk in order to avoid a $19.45 truck toll in today's money.

The NorthConnex truck toll will be the same as that which currently applies on the M2 motorway. Why? Because NorthConnex links the M2 and M1. I am also advised councils are authorised under the new heavy vehicle national regulator that they can also issue a fine. Put simply, running off route is a very expensive way to make a quid; the pain well and truly outweighs any minor gains.

CHILD PROTECTION WEEK

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Paul Green asked me a question on Child Protection Week. National Child Protection Week is an annual event that, for 25 years, has focused on increasing awareness and understanding of the importance of primary prevention to reduce child abuse and neglect in Australia. Each and every Australian has a role to play in helping children and young people to live in safety and grow into strong and happy young people. There is always more that we can do and National Child Protection Week serves as a timely reminder that we cannot rest on our laurels.

The "Play Your Part" campaign is a reminder to each and every one of us of the role we can play on a daily basis in supporting and caring for children. Prevention of child abuse and neglect is a key priority, as is having a strong and responsive child protection system in New South Wales. Last year, the Government started an important reform program to strengthen the child protection system, the Safe Home for Life program. This investment of $500 million over four years represents the next step towards a more inclusive child protection system that streamlines how Government and non-government agencies will work together, and places children at the centre of decision-making. As part of Safe Home for Life, the New South Wales Government has implemented legislative amendments and practical initiatives, including parent capacity orders, parent responsibility contracts and family group conferencing.

The reforms are aimed at promoting good parenting, providing a safe and stable home for children and young people in care, and creating a child-focused system. Wherever possible, we want children to be able to remain safely at home with their family; the reforms prioritise working with families to achieve this goal. Unfortunately, even with support, some families are not always able to do what is necessary to keep their children safe. In these cases, the reforms offer a range of options for permanency, including new guardianship provisions and open adoption. The role of government and non-government agencies working together to place children at the centre of decision-making is vital. Organisations such as Bravehearts and NAPCAN are an important part of the child protection system. I wish to acknowledge the work of all government and non-government agencies who work together to keep our children safe.

Questions without notice concluded.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: (Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.36 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL

The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK [3.36 p.m.]: Tonight I want to talk about Liverpool City Council and the shameful team running this organisation. Mayor Ned Mannoun is a man who has been in the media a lot of late. In 2006 Ned was employed at the Mount Pritchard community club. During this time a large number of gym vouchers were allegedly taken by Ned and sold to others for less than face value. These vouchers were then handed into the gym and memberships were commenced with the club receiving no payment. This was discovered by the club and Ned's employment was ended. After a failed attempt to displace Paul Lynch in 2007, Ned was elected to the council in 2008. Liverpool City Council's administration building burnt down in 2010. How and why is still a mystery, but clearly a lot of accelerant was used. Ned was joined by Mr Sam Bargshoon, who just minutes after the fire started, stood outside watching it burn throughout the night.

In 2011 a Liberal Party fundraiser was held in south-west Sydney. It was attended by Liberal Party royalty, including Joe Hockey. Prizes auctioned on the night included signed bottles of champagne and one alarm system that sold for $1,100. The successful bidder was Sabrina Mamone, one of Ned's campaign volunteers, who would later join him in the council. The Sydney Morning Herald reported in July this year that an identical alarm system was installed in Ned's house after the party fundraiser and receipts for the installation show that there was no charge for the alarm system.

In 2012 Ned was elected to the position of mayor. It is widely acknowledged amongst developers that if you want to get your high-rise development approved, it helps to give a unit to Ned's father. The development at 1 Mill Road, Liverpool reportedly gave Ned's dad three apartments. During his reign as mayor there has been a dramatic increase in the number of staff closely aligned with the Liberal Party, which must be approved by council, yet they never appear in the council structure or within the council salary system and are not governed by the same policies as other council staff. In 2016 council agreed that a pop-up café would operate out of the workers' shed at Bigge Park for a short time. What happened was that the workers were moved out and council spent $80,000 of ratepayers' money turning the shed into a permanent coffee shop in the park. I am told all of this was done for the princely sum of one dollar per year rent. So who was the lucky leaseholder?

We now move on to the general manager, Mr Carl Wulff. After a stint at Wollongong council, Carl moved to Dandenong council where he attempted to enter into a contract with an external private company who would come in and manage the council staff. He resigned with great fanfare when council voted this proposal down, and later became general manager at Ipswich council, where he did enter into a contract to manage council staff with a private company called Propel Partnerships. Propel is a company partly owned by Local Government Queensland and is a subsidiary of Essar, a company that has large holdings in Indian call centres.

Whilst in Ipswich, Carl contracted to have some concreting work done by a family company that also carried out most of the concrete work needed by the council. After almost two years, the bill for this work is still unpaid. The concreters commenced debt recovery processes and in retaliation all their contracts with the council were cancelled. The bill remains unpaid and the family business has been forced to close and declare bankruptcy. In 2013 Mr Wulff rented his two-bedroom $800,000 investment apartment to Professional Consulting Group for $850 a week. Council then reimbursed Professional Consulting Group a total of $48,000. The matter was referred to the Crime and Corruption Commission.

In May 2014 Carl was appointed to the role of chief executive officer of Liverpool City Council. Within two months he had invited Propel in to review the services offered by the in-house staff at council without the approval of the elected council. Propel then proceeded to write the tender, which was written so that only Propel would be able to successfully apply for the tender. Carl had worked with Propel since July 2014 and did not declare an interest until February 2015, after the tender had closed.

Carl, who lives in Ipswich and commutes to Liverpool, met with Propel during the tender period without advising the tender evaluation committee. Prior to the tender closing, Propel was given veto over staffing, location and office plans. A contract was signed by Liverpool City Council in May 2015. Carl routinely tells staff they are not smart enough to understand what he is telling them. He has told staff that he would not live in Liverpool even if you paid him, but he obviously forgets that he is indeed paid $450,000 a year by the ratepayers of Liverpool City Council. I strongly urge the Minister for Local Government to undertake an immediate investigation into all points raised by me today. The state of affairs at Liverpool City Council is deplorable and the ratepayers and businesses deserve much better.

CHINA-AUSTRALIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW [3.41 p.m.]: It is always nice to have so many Opposition members in the Chamber for adjournment speeches. Today I speak in support of Australia's free trade agreement with China, an agreement that has the potential to provide remarkable economic benefits for the people of New South Wales. In 2013-14 exports to China from Australia amounted to $108 billion while imports from China amounted to only $52 billion—a two-to-one trade favour for Australia. In New South Wales annual trade with China amounts to $30 billion per annum. China is our largest trading partner for agriculture and resources, our most valuable tourism market, our greatest source of international students and an increasingly important source of investment in New South Wales.

Recently at Sydney Airport I was astounded to see some of the figures relating to the growth in Chinese inbound visitors to Australia with a compound growth of 10 per cent per annum with new markets opening up several times a year for both Australian aviators and Chinese aviation. We see in China a vital partner but a partner which is growing in strength. That leads one to wonder why people would be opposed to a free trade agreement with a country that has a population of 1.357 billion—a potential market of 1.357 billion in comparison to Australia's 23.13 million. The benefits of free trade with China are just astounding. But when we come to the Federal Labor Party and Bill Shorten—

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Oh!

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: The Hon. Sophie Cotsis should not laugh too much. Of course we thank Luke Foley because he has called it out and said the New South Wales Labor Party sees the benefits with this China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. We thank him for being one of the reasonable, sensible voices in the Labor Party. For many years it has been a somewhat bipartisan view between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party at the Federal level that free trade benefits us all. Unfortunately that compact has been broken by Bill Shorten and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU], his puppetmasters, and that is endangering Australia's economic growth and the economic growth of New South Wales.

Unfortunately the CFMEU campaign is xenophobic and preys on prejudiced fears and baseless economics. The zero sum fallacy states that any one person's gain is balanced by another person's loss. In short: "The foreigners took our jobs." This is a fallacy for a reason. As Milton Friedman put it, "No exchange takes place unless both parties benefit." That is why both Australia and China see such benefit in this free trade agreement. To tick off another of the great ideological thinkers, Adam Smith said:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Does this free trade agreement benefit China? You better believe that it does. But does it benefit Australia? Of course it does. When there is a two-to-one trade weight, the value of trade for Australia and our economic opportunity is unsurpassed. We will see a progressive end to Australian tariffs on Chinese imports, so Australian consumers will benefit. The 5 per cent tariff on Chinese manufacturing exports, electronics and white goods will all eventually be removed. It is unquestionable that New South Wales businesses and consumers will benefit from lower prices and more goods.

In relation to our financial services industry, New South Wales is determined to continue promoting financial services. The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement [ChAFTA] will allow Australia growth in this sector. China has committed to improved market access across banking, insurance, funds management, securities, securitisation and futures sectors. In fact the New South Wales Government was successful in leading the nation and having Sydney become an offshore trading hub for the Chinese currency, the renminbi [RMB], and 13 per cent of Australian companies now trade in RMB—that is in fact the biggest market outside of Asia.

In our agribusiness sector, one of the sectors most likely to benefit from this China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, China, purchases more of Australia's agricultural produce than any other nation. In 2013-14, trade with China came in at $9 billion in the agricultural sector. It is no secret that the ChAFTA will provide Australia with a real advantage over other global agricultural competitors, including the United States, Canada and the European Union. ChAFTA also rebalances the trade advantages that Chile and New Zealand free trade agreements with China have provided. In New South Wales, beef exports increased 136 per cent during the 2013-14 financial year. Our farmers are set to benefit even more. This is a free trade agreement that is simply too big and too significant to endanger. I call on the Federal Labor Party, Bill Shorten and the CFMEU to cease their campaign against this free trade agreement and to embrace it as sensible Labor oppositions and governments have done in the past.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Leader of the Opposition) [3.46 p.m.]: This afternoon I continue to develop the unfortunate theme of the continued toleration of violence against women in our society and the lack of resolute action to combat it. On 11 August this year I turned from issues of physical violence to a discussion about the treatment of women in the world of work, constituting economic violence. That speech focused on the undermining of women's economic security and financial independence by the Government led by the present Prime Minister, Tony Abbott—in particular, the efforts to wind back measures that support working women and their continued participation in the economic life of our nation, embodied in the paid parental leave scheme. Such a policy requires us to ask what it is about our social context that makes our national Government think this is the direction in which the country should be moving.

A second national review completed by the Australian Human Rights Commission in July 2014, Supporting Working Parents: Pregnancy and Return to Work National Review, reveals that a serious and systemic pattern of discrimination continues against women to this day, one that has a significant cost not only to women but also to working parents, their families, workplaces and the national economy. That inquiry found that discrimination ranging from negative attitudes and inappropriate comments through to threats to employment and even termination of employment has an impact on the physical and mental health of individuals, careers and job opportunities, financial situations and families—but, again, mainly women. It also has consequences for workplaces. This includes higher absenteeism, lower productivity and higher staff turnover, recruitment and training costs, as well as reputational damage. In this it is similar in its consequences to workplace bullying.

As at February 2014 the gender pay gap stood at 17.1 per cent. This equates to women being paid $262.50 less than men on average per week. As at May 2014 that gap had widened to 18.2 per cent. For New South Wales the gender pay gap was 16.5 per cent. New Australian Bureau of Statistics data released on 24 February this year showed that the gender pay gap had blown out to nearly 19 per cent, hitting a 20-year high. Whatever the figure, gender disparity in the workforce is costing Australia billions of dollars in the form of unrealised productivity potential.

The rise in the female employment rate since 1974 has boosted our national economic activity by 22 per cent. The International Monetary Fund has recognised that the employment of women on an equal basis with men would allow companies to make better use of the available talent pool, with positive implications for growth. Despite this, it has not happened. As I have indicated previously, a 6 per cent increase in women's participation in the workforce would increase national gross domestic product by $25 billion, which for New South Wales would be about $7 billion or $8 billion. Closing the gender gap in workforce participation and pay is therefore a prerequisite for ending economic inequality and boosting shared prosperity.

There is also evidence of a strong relationship between women's economic participation and general economic growth. However, we can see that issues inhibiting workforce participation for women include job design and workplace flexibility, specifically the lack of flexible employment options, including provisions for parental and carers' leave. Proactive strategies and policies are needed to retain women workers. Failure to support women during their time as a parent contributes to continued discrimination and their departure from the workforce, which costs employers $20 billion in annual staff turnover in Australia. This equates to a further cost to New South Wales of approximately $6 billion to $7 billion each year. The policy of the present Federal Government is, therefore, economically irrational. It is more concerned with promoting an outdated social model that continues to undervalue the role of women in our society.

The need for positive measures can be seen not only in the persistent gender pay gap but also in the unemployment statistics. In this State unemployment has risen from 5 per cent in March 2011 to approximately 6 per cent in July 2015. However, when we look more closely at the figures we can see a gender bias against women. The unemployment rate for men has increased from 4.6 per cent to 5.2 per cent between 2011 and 2015, but for women it has increased from 6.2 per cent to 6.4 per cent. It is a smaller rise but the overall rate of unemployment for women is higher. In Blacktown the unemployment figures for men have risen from 5.6 per cent to 7.9 per cent but for women it has risen from 7.2 per cent to 9.1 per cent. Overall unemployment for that area has increased from 6.3 per cent to 8.4 per cent. For Sydney's outer west and the Blue Mountains region, while general unemployment has increased from 5.7 per cent to 6.1 per cent, for men it has increased from 4.1 per cent to 4.2 per cent, while the figures for women go from 7.4 per cent to 8.4 per cent. There are similar figures for Parramatta and the Richmond-Tweed area.

We can see a systemic pattern of undervaluing women in our society. This evidence shows the social context in which violence against women, be it economic, emotional or physical—as it too often is—continues to flourish. Ultimately, too many in our society think it is okay to undervalue women in the social and economic life of our nation and this creates a space in which some think it is alright to perpetrate violence against women. We must all play our role in changing those values so we can end the epidemic of violence against women, including physical violence.

TAFE NSW

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.51 p.m.]: TAFE is facing an existential challenge. As the upper House inquiry embarks on its schedule of hearings into TAFE's future, there are five inconvenient truths that the people of New South Wales should know. First, TAFE's budget is being privatised. Each year, under the Smart and Skilled training regime, the Minister for Skills decides how much of the vocational education and training [VET] budget will be torn out of TAFE and put into a contestable market. The public system now has to compete with low-cost, low-quality private providers for students and money. In this financial year TAFE's secure budget will lose $750 million. On current trends, it will be more next year. In this environment, TAFE managers cannot know how much of the market they can attract next year. They are responding to the financial insecurity by dumping courses, cutting teaching hours and staff numbers, reducing student support services and outreach, which is forcing students into inappropriate online learning.

A similar market in Victoria is responsible for its TAFE campuses enrolling just over 20 per cent of VET students. New South Wales has started eight years later but it is headed in the same direction. Corporate training providers are reaping massive profits from public funding. Based on evidence from a 2015 Sydney University study, up to $250 million could disappear from the public purse this year and end up being windfall gains of shareholders of the corporate training providers. This money serves no educational purpose in the private sector but if it was spent on TAFE it would create new teaching and learning outcomes.

The second inconvenient truth is that TAFE had already been cut to the bone after two decades of budget cuts before Smart and Skilled started. Over the 16 years of the Labor Government in New South Wales enrolments in TAFE grew while funds were cut in real terms. By the time the Liberal-Nationals came to office, the public system was receiving $960 million a year less than if funding had kept pace with student load and inflation. The O'Farrell-Stoner Government added cuts of its own. Smart and Skilled picked up where the previous budget cuts left off and continued the task of running down the public system.

The third inconvenient truth is that TAFE fees have become complex and unaffordable. TAFE should be free. Instead, Smart and Skilled increased the amount paid by students by 40 per cent and introduced a bewildering array of course fees, concessions and exemptions. It is not just teachers who are struggling to implement the new structure. TAFE management and the New South Wales Government are also confused, often having to backtrack on decisions that are unjust or irrational. Enrolment software that was rushed into use to meet the political timetable for the implementation of the training market exacerbated the confusion and frustration. Most damaging of all is that many students are finding further education unaffordable and have been driven away from a lifetime of skilled employment.

The fourth inconvenient truth is that TAFE is losing viability and is at risk of becoming a marginal player. Across New South Wales, TAFE campuses that were once busy and thriving are turning into ghost towns. The Minister for Skills, John Barilaro, is more interested in recycling assets than in growing opportunities and enrolment at these colleges. Despite the Minister disputing his own figures, it is a cold, hard fact that more than 83,000 fewer students are enrolled in TAFE in 2015 than there were in 2012. This year's TAFE budget also revealed a loss of approximately 2,600 permanent teaching staff and support staff since 2011. The number of part-time casual staff who have lost hours or who are entirely without work is unknown, but anecdotally that figure is even larger. Across the State, critical support roles and funding for students with disability and mental health issues, second-chance learners, outreach and diversity are being run down or lost. Students who were once welcomed into a lifetime of learning and employment are now shunned by a system struggling to cope with the market.

The fifth inconvenient truth is that the quality of skills and education in New South Wales is now at risk. The Smart and Skilled market is competing in a race to the bottom. The Minister spins it as modernisation and the creation of more opportunities for students. The reality is exposed in TAFE's enterprise bargaining proposals that drastically cut wages and conditions, downgrade professionalism and force experienced and highly qualified staff out of the public education system. Management uses the threat of competition and the drastic consequences interstate to justify students being denied access to fully qualified teachers. It is turning vocational education into a low-wage career. TAFE is being dragged down to the same level as its private competitors by a market that treats skills as a commodity and confines post-school education to universities. While the public system struggles to deliver on its mission of providing every school leaver with a quality education, the private providers that are now the Government's benchmark are ticking the boxes on skills packages, shunning students with diverse learning needs— [Time expired.]

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.56 p.m.]: While the issue of same-sex marriage has focused on the alleged denial of human rights to same-sex couples wishing to marry, there has been very little focus on what impact there is to the human rights of those who oppose such marriages, particularly for religious reasons. There is mounting evidence that opposition to such marriages, if they are legalised, will not be tolerated under existing anti-discrimination laws, even if that opposition is based on religious grounds. Overseas experience shows that religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws protecting same-sex marriage are being interpreted in the narrowest possible way. Thus, while anti-discrimination laws may not force clergy into officiating at same-sex marriages, religious exemptions do not protect them from being prosecuted for refusing to allow a church hall to be available for hire for a same-sex wedding celebration.

In Canada, for example, the Catholic Church's Knights of Columbus were prosecuted and fined for refusing to rent their facilities for a same-sex couple's post-wedding celebration. In the Canadian province of Alberta, the Catholic Archbishop of Calgary was forced to defend himself against prosecution for opposing same-sex marriage in a pastoral letter sent to church members. In Denmark, the law requires that clergy of the state-sanctioned Lutheran Church officiate at same-sex weddings. The persecution of clergy and church groups who oppose same-sex marriage or who refuse to rent church facilities to groups promoting same-sex activities is already happening in Australia.

In Victoria there was an outrageous case of a church organisation being prosecuted and fined for refusing to hire church facilities to a homosexual youth group. In Tasmania, Rodney Croome, National Convener of Australian Marriage Equality, felt that he was on strong enough ground to call for Tasmania's Catholic Archbishop, Julian Porteous, to be prosecuted under Tasmanian anti-discrimination laws for writing an article opposing same-sex marriage in a Catholic school magazine. Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, has expressed concerns that churches, as well as business proprietors, could face prosecution under anti-discrimination laws if same-sex marriage is legalised but suggests that appropriate exemptions inserted into anti-discrimination laws could protect those who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons.

This view is well meaning but probably wishful thinking on his part in view of the narrow interpretation placed by activist judicial officers on such religious exemption provisions. In fact, in 2012 an Australian Labor Party dissenting Senate report on a proposed same-sex marriage bill warned that such religious exemptions are "hollow and tactical in nature, rather than matters of substance". Should anyone have any doubt about the intention of supporters of same-sex marriage in Australia to eliminate religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws they should read submissions made to a 2012 Inquiry into the Consolidation of Commonwealth Anti-Discrimination Laws.

At that inquiry 30 organisations comprising legal, human rights and same-sex lobby groups, made it crystal clear that they did not want any exemptions for faith-based groups or anyone else for that matter. Their view was that if such exemptions were to be allowed they should be framed in the narrowest of terms and on a temporary basis with a sunset clause applicable. Groups putting forward such proposals included the Law Institute of Victoria, Legal Aid NSW, Legal Aid Queensland, the Australian National University College of Law, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the AIDS Council of NSW, the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Australian Sex Party, the Australian Lesbian Health Coalition, the South Australian Bar Association and the Human Rights Law Centre.

The agenda of such groups is to open up to prosecution not only religious organisations but also business owners and others who refuse to fall into line in support of same-sex marriage, both in word and in deed. In Canada, the United States and elsewhere where same-sex marriage is legal, wedding planners, hotel owners, florists, photographers, cake makers and clergy who refuse to cater for same-sex wedding-related activities have been dragged before the courts and a myriad of anti-discrimination tribunals to be prosecuted and punished. In many places gender neutral language is being mandated by law. Children no longer have natural parents but legal parents. Lawyers, teachers and other professionals are facing disciplinary procedures and censure if they breach guidelines that are ruthlessly policed. The United States Solicitor General has flagged that the tax-exempt status of religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage could be withdrawn. It appears that we are entering a new era where religious freedom and liberty will be trashed and criminalised.

STRATA HOUSING TERMINATION LEGISLATION

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [4.01 p.m.]: Dr Cathy Sherry is a senior lecturer in the faculty of law at the University of New South Wales and a leading expert on strata and community title. Recently she wrote an insightful piece in the Sydney Morning Herald. Dr Sherry said:

The New South Wales Government has released an exposure draft of strata termination legislation which empowers private citizens to forcibly acquire other people's homes.

People who live in their own apartment face the risk that their neighbours, investors in their building or a developer will decide that they can make a lot of money out of redeveloping the land, and irrespective of another owner's desires or needs, that owner will be forced to sell. So long as 75 per cent of owners agree, (many or all of whom may be investors or a single developer), the site can be collectively sold or redeveloped.

The justification is urban renewal and consolidation. There are apartment buildings that are nearing the end of their life and repairing them is like moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. Further, Sydney desperately needs more housing, and redeveloping a six-lot strata scheme into a 24-lot scheme will increase supply and density. Both are laudable aims and could justify legislation that requires less than unanimous agreement to sale or redevelopment, even if that resulted in people involuntarily losing their homes.

The problem is that the Government has not included either justification in the legislation. There is no requirement that the building to be redeveloped against the wishes of a quarter of the owners has to be run-down. It may be one of the many well-maintained small schemes, but because it is in a high value position, with the potential for higher density redevelopment and a hefty profit, it will be a prime target for "renewal". Look along Sydney's beaches and harbour front and you will see multiple properties that could be redeveloped to the height of their neighbours. If that property is a freestanding house, the owner will be safe.

No one can force them to sell. If the property is a four or eight-lot apartment block, already doing four or eight times as much for urban density than the freestanding home, its owners will not be safe. No matter how much they have cared for their home, no matter how attached they may be to the neighbourhood, no matter how old, sick or frail they may be, they can be forced to sell.

While most sites will be redeveloped at higher density, that is not guaranteed. The only motivation developers have, quite legitimately, is profit, and redevelopment at lower density can produce that result. In 2011, a developer who failed in his attempt to buy out a rundown building on Bondi Beach wanted to turn the site from an eight-lot scheme into a four-lot scheme.

The condition of the building in question would have justified forcible redevelopment, but the case still demonstrates that market solutions are invariably imperfect. The market-driven "luxury" redevelopment of that site would have halved its contribution to housing supply.

Dr Sherry further examined the issue of compulsory acquisition, and then went on to say:

The legislation will empower private citizens to compulsorily acquire other people's homes. Compensation will be paid, but as the justification for the legislation, namely urban renewal and consolidation, are absent from its provisions, acquisition may or may not produce a public benefit. In some buildings, the only benefit will be a profit for other owners and a developer, as well as more high-end housing for those who can afford it.

Ownership of a strata apartment necessarily involves limits on individual owners' rights, and that may include losing your home to free others from fruitless, spiralling maintenance costs in a building that has had its day. It might also include losing your home to create greater urban density, although it could be asked why those privileged enough to live in freestanding houses doing the least for urban density are exempt from this utilitarian obligation.

However, strata title legislation should never take the property of one citizen and give it to another for the sole purpose of that other citizen making a profit. The possibility of that occurring must be an anathema to any functioning democracy.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 4.06 p.m. until Tuesday 15 September 2015 at 2.30 p.m.

______